4  501  200 


PATENTS 

BY  CHARLES  HOLLAND  DUELL* 

I.  NATURE  OF  PATENTS,  815 

A.  In  General,  815 

1.  Grant,  815 

2.  No  Common -Law  Right,  815 

3.  Consideration  For  Grant,  816 

4.  Creation  of  Statute,  816 

5.  Contract,  816 
G.  Monopoly,  816 

B.  Eights  of  Patentees,  817 

1.  Nature  of  Eight,  817 

2.  Territory  Covered  by  Eight,  817 

3.  Need  Not  Use  Invention  or  License  Others  to  Use,  817 

4.  Eight  of  Government  to  Use  Invention,  818 

5.  Government  Cannot  Cancel  Patent,  818 

C.  Patents  as  Property,  819 

1.  Personal  Property,  819 

2.  Location,  819 

3.  /2W  Reached  by  the  Courts,  819 

D.  Constitutional  Authority  For  Patents,  819 

1.  /ft,  General,  819 

2.  Grant  to  Inventors  Not  to  Importers,  820 

3.  Patents  Granted  by  State,  820 

n.  SUBJECTS  OF  PATENTS,  820 

A.  Patentable  Subject -Matter,  820 

1.  In  General,  820 

2.  Statutory  Classes  of  Invention,  820 

3.  Physical  Things  Only  Are  Patentable,  820 

4.  Result  of  Principle  J^ot  Patentable,  821 

5.  Means  Are  Patentable,  822 

B.  Art,  822 

1.  7™  General,  822 

2.  Must  Produce  Physical  Eesult,  824 

3.  Function  Not  Patentable,  824 

4.  Independent  of  Apparatus,  824 

5.  Chemical  or  Elemental  Action,  825 

6.  Mechanical  Processes,  825 

7.  J&iowledge  of  Principles  Involved  Unnecessary,  825 

C.  Machines,  825 

D.  Manufacture,  825 

E.  Composition  of  Matter,  826 

F.  Improvement,  826 

1.  /n  General,  826 

2.  Superiority  Unnecessary,  826 

G.  Designs,  827 

1.  /ft  General,  827 

2.  Term.  828 


*  Formerly  United  States  Commissioner  of  Patents  ;  and  sometime  Associate  Justice  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

The  author  acknowledges  valuable  assistance  from  John  M.  Coit,  Esq.,  of  the  Washington  City  Bar.  Mr. 
Coit  was  for  many  years  Law  Clerk  of  the  Pateut4)i^(*sa«drfeMtor  Examiner-in-Chief. 


COPYRIGHT,  1 90 
THE  AMERiCAN  LAW  BOOK  CO., 


804     [30  Cy c.]  'PA  TENTS 

III.   PATENTABILITY,  828 

A.  In  General,  828 

B.  Novelty,  828 

1.  In  General,  828 

2.  Prior  Knowledge  in  This  Country,  829 

3.  Extent  of  Prior  Knowledge,  829 

4.  Date  of  Knowledge,  829 

5.  Prior  Knowledge  or  Use  Abroad,  829 

6.  Publication  or  Patent  Abroad,  830 

7.  Novelty  of  Means,  830 

8.  Novelty  of  Function  or  Result,  830 

9.  Novelty  of  Form,  831 

10.  Novelty  ^n  Combination,  831 

C.  Anticipation,  832 

1.  In  General,  832 

a.  Introductory  Statement,  832 

b.  Full  Disclosure  Necessary,  832 

c.  Identity,  832 

d.  General  Knowledge  of  Public  Unnecessary,  834 

e.  Patentee's  Knowledge  of  Anticipation  Unnecessary ',  835 

2.  P-ra>r  Patents,  835 

a.  /ft  General,  835 

b.  Foreign  Patents^  835 

c.  Paper  Patents,  836 

d.  Secret  Patents,  836 

e.  Sufficiency  of  Description,  836 

f.  Failure  to  Claim  Immaterial,  837 

3.  Prior  Publication,  837 

a.  7?i  General,  837 

b.  Sufficiency  of  Publication,  837 

c.  Sufficiency  of  Description,  838 

4.  Prior  Knowledge  and  'Use,  838 

a.  Sufficiency  of  Knowledge,  838 

b.  Mental  Idea  Insufficient,  838 

c.  Necessity  For  Perfected  Invention,  838 

d.  Necessity  For  Demonstration  of  Success,  839 

e.  Abandoned  or  Unsuccessful  Experiments,  839 

f .  Models  and  Unpublished  Drawings,  840 

g.  Accidental  Production  of  Invention,  840 
h.  Z0*2  ^Irtf,  841 

i.   Combination  of  Old  Elements,  841 
j.  Non- Analogous  Use,  842 
K.  Evidence,  842 

(i)  Presumptions  and  Iturden  of  Proof,  842 
(n)  Admissibility,  842 

(A)  //i  General,  842 

(B)  Application  For  Patent,  843 
(in)  Weight  and  Sufficiency,  844 

D.  Utility,  845 

1.  /^  General,  845 

2.  Evidence  of  Utility,  846 

E.  Invention,  847 

1 .  Necessity,  847 

2.  Nature,  847 

3.  Invention  and  Discovery  Synonymous,  848 

4.  Prior  Art  Considered,  848 

5.  Novelty  and  Superiority  Not  Invention,  848 


PATENTS  [30  Cye.]     805 

6.  Simplicity  Does  Not  Negative,  849 

7.  Complexity  Not  Proof  of  Inven  tion,  849 

8.  Mechanical  Skill,  849 

9.  Superior  Finish  or  Form  Not  Invention,  850 

10.  Difference  in  Degree  Not  Patentable,  851 

11.  Duplication  of  Parts,  852 

12.  Double  Use,  852 

13.  New  and  Non -Analogous  Use,  854 
Itt.  Substitution  of  Equivalents,  855 

a.  In  General,  855 

b.  Superiority  of  Substituted  Part  No  Test,  856 

15.  Substitution  of  Material,  856 

16.  Change  of  Location  of  Parts,  857 

1 7.  Omission  of  Parts,  857 

18.  Making  Parts  Integral  or  Separate,  858 

19.  Making  Device  Portable,  858 

20.  Combination,  858 

a.  _/?£  General,  858 

b.  Z«<?&  #/*  Novelty  in  Elements  Immaterial,  859 

c.  Coaction  of  Elements  Necessary,  859 

21.  Aggregation,  860 

a.  7/i  General,  860 

b.  Multiplication  of  Elements,  861 

c.  jYtfixjZ  Elements,  861 

22.  Evidence  of  Invention,  861 

a.  Unsuccessful  Efforts  of  Others,  861 

b.  Supplying  Long  -Felt  Want,  862 

c.  Popularity  of  the  Supposed  Invention,  862 
F.  Statutory  Forfeiture  Regardless  of  Intent,  863 

1.  In  General,  863 

2.  Publication  Two  Years  Before  Application,  863 

3.  Foreign  Patent,  864 

4.  Concealment  of  Invention,  864 

5.  Z>afe  #/"  Application,  864 

6.  Renewal  or  Substitute  Application,  864 

7.  Divisional  Applications,  865 

8.  Prior  Public  Use  or  Sale,  865 

a.  .4s  13 ar  to  Patent,  865 

b.  Nature  of  Use  Sufficient  to  Bar  Patent,  866 

(i)  In  General,  866 
(u)  Single  Instance  Sufficient,  866 
(in)  Knowledge  or  Consent  of  the  Inventor,  866 
(iv)  Invention  Must  Be  Complete,  867 
(v)  Experimental  Use,  867 
(vi)  Secret  Use,  867 
(vn)  Natural  and  Intended  Use,  867 
(vm)    Use  For  Profit,  867 


(ix)    Use  in  a  Foreign  Country,  868 
c.  Oi 


Sale,  868 
(i)  In  General,  868 
(n)  Single  Sale  Sufficient,  868 
(in)   Offer  For  Sale,  868 
(iv)  Sale  For  Experiment,  868 
(v)   Conditional  Sale.  869 
(vi)  Perfected  Invention,  869 
(vn)  Burden  of  Proof  ,  869 
G.  Abandonment  of  In  mention,  869 


806     [SOCye.]  PATENTS 

1.  In  General,  869 

2.  Question  of  Intent,  870 

3.  Express  Abandonment ,  870 

4r.  Abandonment  by  Conduct,  870 

5.  Necessity  of  Disclosure  to  Public,  871 

6.  Abandoned  Experiments,  871 

7.  Failure  to  Claim  in  Patent,  871 

8.  Abandonment  of  Application,  871 

9.  Evidence  of  Abandonment,  872 

IV.  PERSONS  ENTITLED  TO  PATENTS,  872 

A.  Original  and  First  Inventor,  872 

1.  In  General,  872 

2.  JFYrotf  Inventor,  873 

3.  Originality  of  Invention,  873 

4.  Cit^2enship  of  Inventor,  874 

5.  deduction  to  Practice,  874 

a.  7/i  General,  874 

b.  Constructive  Reduction  to  Practice,  875 

6.  Diligence,  876 

7.  Models,  Drawings,  and  Description,  877 

8.  Assistance  by  Others,  877 

9.  Invention  Made  Abroad,  878 

10.  Evidence  as  to  Originality  and  Priority,  878 

a.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  878 

b.  Admissibility  and  Sufficiency,  878 

B.  Joint  Inventors,  879 

1.  In  General,  879 

2.  Joinder  and  Grant,  879 

C.  Employer  and  Employee,  880 

1.  /ft  General,  880 

2.  Perfection  of  Employees  Ideas,  881 

3.  Presumptions  as  to  Inventorship,  881 

D.  Government  Employees,  881 

E.  Assignees,  882 

F.  Personal  Representatives,  882 

G.  Heirs,  882 

II.   Guardian  of  Insane  Person,  882 

V.  APPLICATION  AND  PROCEEDINGS  THEREON,  882 

A.  /^  General,  882 

B.  Requisites  of  Application,  882 

1.  /ft  General,  882 

2.  Specification  or  Description,  883 

a.  /ft  General,  883 

b.  Matters  of  Common  Knowledge,  884 

c.  Z7s6#  0/*  Invention,  884 

d.  Philosophical  Principles,  885 

e.  Improvements,  885 

f .  Concealment  and  Deception,  885 

3.  Claims,  886 

a.  /ft  General,  886 

b.  Vague,  Indefinite,  and  Inaccurate  Claims,  886 

c.  Must  State  Means,  Not  Function  or  Result,  886 

d.  Breadth  of  Claim,  886 

e.  Alternative  Claims,  887 

f.  Multiplicity  of  Claims,  887 

4.  Drawings,  887 


PATENTS  [30  Cye.]     807 

5.  Oath,  888 

a.  Necessity,  888 

b.  By  and  Before  Whom  Made,  888 

c.  Absence  of  Written  Oath,  888 

6.  Fees,  889 

7.  Subject -Matter  or  Scope,  889 

C.  Examination  and  Proceedings  in  Patent  Office,  889 

1.  In  General,  889 

2.  Rejection,  890 

3.  Evidence  at  Hearing,  890 

4.  Amendment,  891 

a.  //&  General,  891 

b.  Jfoai  Matter,  891 

c.  Delay  in  Amending,  891 

d.  O^A,  892 

5.  Allowance,  892 

6.  forfeiture  and  Renewal,  892 

7.  Abandonment,  892 

8.  Interference*  892 

a.  7?i  General,  892 

b.  Between  Applicants  and  Patentees,  893 

c.  Evidence,  894 

(i)  J3urden  of  Proof,  894 
(n)  Admissibility  and  Weight  and  Sufficiency,  895 

d.  Pleadings,  895 

e.  Second  Interference,  896 

9.  Appeal,  896 

a.  7?i  General,  896 

b.  TFA0  Entitled  to  Appeal,  896 

c.  Formalities  and  Proceedings,  897 

d.  Appealable  Decisions,  897 

e.  Review,  898 

f .  7Ym0  Tfyr  Appeal,  899 

10.  Caveats,  899 

a.  7/i  General,  899 

b.  Tfy  TFAora  7^7<?d,  899 

11.  Secrecy  of  Applications  and  Caveats,  900 

12.  Right    to    Inspect    and     Obtain     Copies    of    Patent     Office 

Records,  900 

13.  Copies  of  Records,  900 

14.  7i?tt&?*  0/*  Patent  Office,  900 

15.  Collusiveness  and  Effect  of  Patent  Office  Decisions,  900 

a.  7^  General,  900 

b.  .As     to     Application     and     Procedure     in     Obtaining 

Patent,  901 

c.  As  to  Patentability,  902 

d.  As  to  Originality  and  Priority,  902 

e.  As  to  Abandonment,  903 

16.  Remedy  in  Equity  For  Refusal  of  Patent,  903 

a.  In  General,  903 

b.  Time  and  Place  of  Suit,  904 

c.  Burden  of  Proof,  904 

VI.  REQUISITES  AND  VALIDITY  OF  LETTERS  PATENT,  904 

A.  Form  and  Contents,  904 

1.  As  an  Instrument,  904 

2.  Record,  905 

3.  Date  of  Issue,  905 


808     [30  Cye.]  PATENTS 

B.  Validity,  905 

1.  In  General,  905 

2.  Sufficiency  of  Description,  906 

3.  Name  of  Patentee,  906 
4:.  Deceptive  Patent,  906 

a.  In  General,  906 

b.  Suppression  of  Facts,  907 

5.  Joinder  of  Several  Inventions,  907 

6.  Double  Patenting,  907 

7.  Claims,  908 

a.  /^  General,  908 

b.  Excessive  Claims,  909 

8.  Delay  of  Application  in  Patent  Office,  909 

9.  Jurisdiction  to  Determine  Validity,  909 

C.  Correction  or  Amendment  of  Patents,  910 

D.  Interfering  Patents,  910 

1.  //i  General,  910 

2.  Proceedings,  910 

3.  Judgment,  911 

E.  Annulment  or  Repeal,  911 

F.  Estoppel  to  Dispute  Validity,  912 

1.  /ft,  General,  912 

2.  Estoppel  of  Inf  ringer,  912  V^   , 

3.  Estoppel  of  Assignor,  913 

4.  Estoppel  of^  Assignee,  Grantee,  or  Licensee,  914 

5.  Expired  License,  914 

VII.  TERM,  915 

A.  7ft,  General,  915 

1.  Mechanical  Patents,  915 

2.  Designs,  915 

3.  Reissues,  915 

4.  Limitation  ~by  Foreign  Patent,  915 

a.  7ft<  General,  915 

b.  Identity  of  Invention,  916 

c.  Ztafe  0^  foreign  Patent,  917 

d.  /^rra  of  Foreign  Patent,  917 

e.  Lapse  or  Expiration  of  Foreign  Patent,  917 

B.  Extensions,  918 

VIII.  REISSUES,  919 

A.  /ft  General,  919 

1.  Definition,  919 

2.  Power  to  Reissue  and  Grounds,  919 

3.  Persons  Entitled  to  Reissue,  920 

4.  /Vra,  921 

B.  /V'm0  j^br  Application,  921 

1.  7ft/  General,  921 

2.  Intervening  Rights  of  Third  Persons,  921 

3.  Excuses  For  Delay,  922 

C.  Identity  of  Invention,  923 

1.  /n  General,  923 

2.  -ZV^to  Matter,  925 

a.  /ft  General,  925 

b.  Intention  to  Claim,  925 

c.  Apparat^is,  Process,  and  Product,  926 

3.  Reinsertion  of  Canceled  Claim,  926 


PATENTS  [30  Cye.]     809 

D.  Surrender  of  Original  Patent,  926 

E.  Applications  and  Proceedings  Thereon,  927 

1.  In  General,  927 

2.  Divisional  Reissues,  927 

F.  Reissues  of  Reissued  Patents,  927 

G.  Collusiveness  and  Effect  of  Patent  Office  Decisions,  927 

1.  In  General,  927 

2.  As  to  Grounds  For  Reissue,  928 

3.  As  to  Identity,  928 

II.  Validity,  Construction,  and  Operation  of  Reissues,  929 

1.  Validity,  929 

2.  Construction  and  Operation,  929 

a.  In  General,  929 

b.  Retroactive  Operation,  930 

IX.  DISCLAIMERS,  930 

A.  In  General,  930 

B.  Subject  -Matter  of  Disclaimer,  930 

C.  Time  for  Disclaimer,  931 

D.  Effect  of  Failure  to  Disclaim,  931 

E.  Effect  of  Disclaimer,^ 

X.  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  OF  LETTERS  PATENT,  932 

A.  In  General,  932 

1.  General  Rules  of  Construction  Relating  to  Contracts  Appli- 

cable, 932 

2.  Liberally  Construed,  933 

3.  Plain  Meaning  Not  Varied,  933 

4.  Intention  of  Inventor,  934 

5.  Proceedings  in  Patent  Office,  934 

6.  Opinion  of  Experts,  935 

7.  State  of  the  Art,  935 

8.  Patent  as  Notice,  936 

9.  Questions  For  Court  and  Jury,  936 

B.  Limitation  of  Claims,  936 

1.  In  General,  936 

2.  Claims  Construed  hy  Specifications,  938 

3.  j?gf<?c£  of  Words  "Substantially  as  Described"* in  Claim,  939 

4.  Reference  Letters,  939 

5.  Equivalents,  939 

6.  Pioneer  Inventions,  940 

7.  Improvements,  940 

8.  Combination,  941 

9.  Amendment  in  Patent  Office,  941 

10.  Separate  Claims  Distinguished,  943 

11.  Designs,  943 

XL  TITLE,  CONVEYANCES,  AND  CONTRACTS,  943 

A.  Assignments  and  Other  Transfers,  943 

1.  TT&  General,  943 

a.  Assignability,  943 

b.  TFA0  J/ay  Assign,  943 

(i)  Tw,  General,  943 
(u)  Joint  Owners,  943 

2.  Agreements  to  Assign,  944 

a.  /TI  General,  944 

b.  Future  Patents,  944 


810     [30  Cye.]  PATENTS 

c.  Recording,  945 

d.  Actions,  945 

3.  Requisites  and  Validity,  946 

a.  In  General,  946 

b.  Form  and  Contents,  946 

c.  Validity,  947 

4.  Recording,  947 

a.  In  ij-eneral,  947 

b.  Notice,  948 

c.  Acknowledgment  Before  Notary,  948 

5.  Construction  and  Operation,  948 

a.  7ft-  General,  948 

b.  Warranty,  949 

c.  Rights  and  Interests  Conveyed,  949 

(i)  7ft-  General,  949 

(n)  Rights  in  Extended  Term,  950 
(in)  Rights  in  Reissue^  950 
(iv)  After -Acquired  Title,  950 

(v)  flights  of  Action  For  Past  Infringement,  950 

d.  Covenants,  Conditions,  and  Restrictions^  951 

(i)  7ft  General,  951 
(n)  Remedy  For  Breach  of  Conditions,  951 

(A)  Rescission  or  Cancellation,  951 

(B)  Recovery  of  Damages,  951 

6.  Rights,  Remedies,  and  Liabilities  of  Parties,  952 

a.  In  General,  952 

b.  As  to  Each  Other,  952 

(i)  In  General,  952 

(n)  Liability  For,  and  Recovery  Of,  Consideration,  952 
(in)  Recovery  Back  of  Consideration  by  Assignee,  953 

c.  As  to  Third  Parties,  953 

7.  Transfer  by  Succession  or  Inheritance,  954 
B.  Licenses  and  Contracts,  954 

1.  Licenses,  954 

a.  In  General,  954 

b.  Requisites  and  Validity,  954 

(i)  In  General,  954 
(n)  Implied  License,  955 

(A)  In  General,  955 

(B)  From  Sale  of  Patented  Article,  955 

c.  Recording,  956 

d.  Construction  and  Operation,  956 

(ri  7n  General,  956 
(n)  Rights  and  Interests  Conveyed,  956 

(A)  7n  General,  956 

(B)  Place  For  Exercise  of  License.  957 

(1)  Express  License,  957 

(2)  Implied  License,  957 
(c)  Duration  of  License,  957 

(1)  7?i  General,  957 

(2)  7ft-  Extended  Term,  958 
(in)  Covenants  and  Conditions,  958 

e.  Rights,  Remedies,  and  Liabilities,  959 

(i)  7?i  General,  959 
(n)  Enjoining  Use  of  Invention,  959 

(in)  Liability  For  and  Recovery  Of  Consideration  For 
License,  960 


PATENTS  [30  Cye.]     811 

f .  Assignments  and  Sublicenses,  960 

(i)  In  General,  960 
(n)  Assent     to     or     Recognition     of    Assignment    by 

Licensor,  960 
(in)  Rights  and  Liabilities  of  Parties,  961 

g.  Revocation,  Forfeiture,  or  Other  Termination,  961 

(i)  By  Licensor,  961 

(n)  By  Licensee,  962 
(in)  By  Death  of  Licensee,  962 
(iv)  By  Dissolution  of  Partnership  or  Corporation^  962 

(v)  Revival  of  Forfeited  License,  962 

2.  Contracts,  962 

3.  Royalties,  963 

a.  Rights  and  Liabilities  of  Parties,  963 

(i)  When  Royalties  Due,  963 

(n)  Amount  of  Royalty,  963 

(in)  Persons  'Entitled  to  Royalties,  964 

(iv)  Persons  Liable  For  Royalties,  964 

(v)  Lien,  965 

b.  Remedies,  965 

C.  Enforcement  of  Assignments,  Contracts,  and  Agreements,  966 

XII.  REGULATION  OF  DEALINGS    IN    PATENT   RIGHTS  AND  PATENTED  ARTI- 
CLES, 967 

A.  By  Congress,  967 

1.  Failure  to  Mark  Patented  Articles,  967 

2.  Marking  Unpatented  Article,  968 

3.  Penalties,  968 

a.  In  General,  968 

b.  Infringement  of  Design  Patents,  969 

B.  By  States,  969 

XIII.  INFRINGEMENT,  971 

A.   What  Constitutes,  971 

1.  In  General,  971 

2.  Making,  Using,  or  Selling,  972 

3.  Article  Made  Hefore  Patent,  972 

4.  Experimental  Use,  972 

5.  Knowledge  or  Intent  of  Inf ringer,  973 

6.  Identity  of  Infringing  Device,  973 

a.  In  General,  973 

b.  Limitation  of  Claims,  975 

c.  Diversity  of  Use,  975 

d.  Combination,  975 

e.  Process,  977 

f .  Composition,  978 

g.  Substitution  of  Equivalents,  979 

(i)  In  General,  979 
(n)  What  Are  Equivalents,  980 
(in)  Necessity  For  Knowledge  of  Equivalent  at  Date  of 

Patent,  982 

h.   Omission  of  Parts,  983 
i.  Addition  of  Parts,  984 
j.   Transposition  of  Elements,  984 
k.  Repair,  985 

1.  Superiority  or  Inferiority  as  a  Test  of  Infringement,  986 
in.  Patented  Improvement,  987 


812     [SOCye.]  PATENTS 

7.  Designs,  988 

8.  Infringement  After  Expiration  of  Patent,  989 

B.  Contributory  Infringement,  989 

1.  In  General,  989 

2.  Selling  Parts  of  Patented  Invention,  989 

3.  Selling  Article  Used  With  Patented  Invention,  990 

4.  Miscellaneous,  991 

C.  Suits,  991 

1.  In  General,  991 

2.  Jurisdiction,  991 

a.  7?i  General,  991 

b.  /&M^  ^b/»  <m  Accounting,  992 

c.  Expiration  of  Patent,  993 

3.  Pte  to  xSw<?,  993 

4.  Grounds,  994 

5.  Conditions  Precedent,  994 

6.  Defenses,  994 

a.  /ft.  General,  994 

b.  Estoppel,  995 

c.  Co7nbination  in  Restraint  of  Trade,  995 

d.  Limitations  and  Laches,  996 

(i)  Limitations,  996 
(n)  Laches,  996 

(A)  /?&  General,  996 

(1)  ^4.s  /?&r  to  Permanent  Injunction,  996 

(2)  ^.5  /for  to  Preliminary  Injunction,  997 

(3)  ^[5  /for-  to  Accounting  For  Profits,  998 

(B)  Excuses  For  Delay,  998 

(1)  Ignorance  of  Infringement,  998 

(2)  (Mtfr  Excuses,  998 

(c)  Ladies  of  Prior  Owner,  999 

7.  Persons  Entitled  to  Sue  and  Parties  Plaintiff,  999 

a.  /tt  General,  999 

b.  Licenses,  1000 

(i)  7/i  /Si^fc  Against  Strangers,  1000 
(n)  /ft  <$Wfo  Against  Patentee,  1001 

8.  Persons  Liable  and  Parties  Defendant,  1001 

a.  /^  Actions  at  Law,  1001 

b.  In  Salts  in  Equity,  1002 

(i)  Persons  Liable,  1002 

(A)  Private  Corporations  and  Their  Officers,  1002 

(B)  Officers  of  United  States,  1002 
(c)  e/^fttf  Owner  of  Patent,  1003 

(D)  Agents  and  Servants,  1003 

(E)  e/<^ft£  and  Several  Liability,  1003 
(n)  Parties,  1003 

(A)  //i  General,  1003 

(B)  Receivers  of  Private  Corporation,  1004 
(c)  Agents  and  Servants,  1004 

c.  Addition  or  Substitution  of  Parties,  1004 

9.  Joinder  of  Causes  of  Action,  1004 

10.  Suit  on  Separate  Claims  of  One  Patent,  1005 

11.  Injunctions,  1005 

a.  In  General,  1005 

b.  Preliminary  Injunction,  1006 

(i)  /ft  General,  1006 
(n)  Issuance  and  Validity  of  Patent,  1008 


PATENTS  [30  Cye.]     813 

(in)  Public  Acquiescence  in  Validity,  1010 
(iv)  Previous  Adjudications,  1010 

(A)  As     a     Prerequisite    to    the    Allowance    of 

Injunctions,  1010 

(B)  As   a    Ground    For   Refusing   or    Granting 

Injunctions,  1011 

(c)  Effect  on  Question  of  Infringement,  1013 
(v)  Terms  and  Conditions,  1013 
(vi)  Indemnity  Bond,  1014 

(vn)   Application  and  Proceedings  Thereon,  1014 
(vin)   Consideration  and  Judgment  on  Motion,  1015 

(ix)  Modifying  or  Dissolving,  1015 
c.  Permanent  Injunction,  1016 
cL    Violation  and  Punishment,  1016 

(i)   Writ  or  Mandate  Violated,  1016 
(n)  Knowledge  or  Notice,  1017 
(in)   Who  Liable,  1017 

(iv)  Acts  or  Conduct  Constituting  Violation,  1017 
(v)  Defenses,  1018 
(vi)  Proceedings  to  Punish,  1018 

(A)  Notice,  1018 

(B)  Evidence,  1019 

(c)  Hearing  and  Determination,  1019 
(vn)  Punishment,  1020 

(A)  Matters  Considered  in  Mitigation,  1030 

(B)  Amount  of  Fine,  1020 

(c)  Distribution  of  Fine,  1020 
(vin)   Costs,  1020 

12.  Damages  and  Profits,  1020 

a.  Damages  in  Actions  af  Law,  1020 

(i)  Right  to  Recover  and  Form  of  Action,  1020 
(n)  Amount  Recoverable,  1020 

(A)  In  General*  1020 

(B)  Counsel  Fees  and  Expenses,  1023 
(c)  Interest,  1023 

(D)  Double  and  Treble  Damages,  1023 
(m)  Designs,  1023 
(iv)  Effect  of  Recovery,  1024 

b.  Profits  and  Damages  in  Suits  in  Equity,  1024 

(i)  In  General,  1024 
(n)  Estimation  of  Profits  and  Damages,  1025 

13.  Pleadings,  1029 

a.  In  Actions  at  Law,  1029 

(i)  In  General,  1029 
(u)  Declaration  or  Complaint,  1029 
(in)  Plea  or  Answer,  1029 

(A)  In  General,  1029 

(B)  Notice  of  Special  Matter  of  Defense,  1030 

b.  In  Suits  in  Equity,  1031 

(i)  J?ill,WZl 
(n)  Plea  or  Answer,  1033 

(A)  Plea,  1033 

>^v.  (1)  /;i  General,  WZZ 

(2)  Requisites  and  Sufficiency,  1034 

(3)  Jgfe^    <?/    Setting    Down    For    Argu- 

ment, 1034 

(B)  Answer,  1034 


814     [30  eye.]  PATENTS 

(1)  Matters    Required    to    Be    Raised    l) 

Answer,  1034 

(2)  Requisites  and  Sufficiency,  1034 

(3)  Amendment,  1035 

(4)  Admissions  in  Answer,  1035 

(5)  Notice  of  Special  Matter,  1036 

(a)  Necessity,  1036 

(b)  Sufficiency,  1037 

(c)  Verification,  1037 

(d)  Wa^ver,•wm 
(in)  O(W*  Bill,  1037 

(iv)  Supplemental  Bill,  1037 
(v)  Demurrer  and  Exceptions,  1037 
(vi)  Amendments,  Variance,  and  Multifariousness,  1038 

14.  Evidence,  1039 

a.  /;*  General,  1039 

b.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof,  1040 

c.  Evidence  as  to  Invalidity  of  Patent,  1041 

d.  Expert  Witnesses,  1042 

e.  Estoppel,  1042 

f.  Evidence  as  to  Infringement,  1042 

g.  Secret  Inventions,  1042 

1).  Proving  Patents  and  Patent  Office  Records,  1042 
i.  Judicial  Notice,  1043 

15.  Issues,  Proof,  and  Variance,  1043 

16.  Trial  in  Actions  at  Law,  1044 

a.  In  General,  1044 

b.  Questions  For  Court  and  Jury,  1044 

17.  Hearing  in  Suits  in  Equity,  1045 

a.  Questions  Determined,  1045 

b.  Submission  of  Issues  to  Jury,  1046 

c.  Reception  of  Evidence,  1046 

d.  Dismissal,  1047 

(i)  At  What  Stage  of  Cause  Allowable,  1047 
(n)  Grounds,  1047 

(in)  Dismissal  Without  Prejudice,  1047 
(iv)  Operation  and  Effect,  1047 

18.  Interlocutory  Decree  and  Accounting,  1047 

a.  Interlocutory  Decree,  1047 

b.  Proceedings  in  Accounting,  1048 

19.  Costs,  1049 

a.  /?&  Actions  at  Law,  1049 

b.  7?i  Suits  in  Equity,  1050 

20.  Appeal  and  Error,  1051 

a.  In  Actions  at  Law,  1051 

b.  In  Suits  in  Equity,  1051 

(i)  Final  Decree,  1051 
(n)  Interlocutory  Decree,  1051 

21.  Rehearing,  1053 

D.  Threats  of  Suit,  1054 

E.  Operation  and  Effect  of  Decision,  1054 

1.  /TI  General,  1054 

2.  Recovery  by  Patentee  as  Vesting  Title  in  Infringer,  1056 

CROSS-REFERENCES 

For  Matters  Kelating  to : 

Copyright,  see  COPYRIGHT. 

Injunction  to  Restrain  Slander  of  Title,  see  INJUNCTIONS. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     815 


For  Matters  Eelating  to  —  (continued} 

Mandamus  to  Compel  Issuance  of  Patent,  see  MANDAMUS. 
Monopoly,  see  MONOPOLIES. 
Patent  For  Land : 

In  General,  see  PUBLIC  LANDS. 

Land  Under  Water,  Cancellation  of,  see  NAVIGABLE  WATERS. 

Mineral  Land,  see  MINES  AND  MINERALS. 
Trade-Mark  or  Trade-Name,  see  TRADE-MARKS  AND  TRADE-NAMES. 

I.  NATURE  OF  PATENTS. 

A.  In  General —  1.  GRANT.  A  patent  for  an  invention  is  a  grant  by  the  state 
to  the  inventor,  his  heirs  or  assigns,  of  the  exclusive  right  to  make,  use,  and  vend 
the  thing  patented  for  a  definite  period  of  time.1  The  inventor  has  a  natural 
right  to  make,  use,  and  vend  his  invention,  and  therefore  the  patent  confers  upon 
him  no  right  save  the  right  to  exclude  others  from  making,  using,  or  selling  his 
invention.2 

2.  No  COMMON-LAW  RIGHT.  At  common  law  the  inventor  has  no  right  to  pre- 
vent others  from  using  his  invention,8  but  he  may  keep  it  secret  and  in  that  way 
deprive  the  public  of  its  benefits. 


1.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4884  [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3381]. 

Other  definitions  are:  "A  grant  made  by 
the  government  to  an  inventor,  conveying 
and  securing  to  him  the  exclusive  right  to 
make  and  sell  his  invention  for  a  term  of 
years."  Black  L.  Diet. 

"  Public  franchises  granted  to  the  in- 
ventors of  new  and  useful  improvements  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  to  them,  as  such  in- 
ventors, for  the  limited  term  therein  men- 
tioned, the  exclusive  right  and  liberty  to 
make  and  use  and  vend  to  others  to  be  used 
their  own  inventions,  as  tending  to  promote 
the  progress  of  science  and  the  useful  arts, 
and  as  matter  of  compensation  to  the  in- 
ventors for  their  labor,  toil,  and  expense  in 
making  the  inventions,  and  reducing  the  same 
to  practice  for  the  public  benefit,  as  contem- 
plated by  the  Constitution  and  sanctioned  by 
the  laws  of  Congress."  .Seymour  v.  Osborne, 
11  Wall.  (U.  S.)  516,  533,  20  L.  ed.  33.. 

"  Patent  right." — "A  monopoly  of  a  certain 
way  of  doing  a  thing.  It  is  an  exclusive 
right  of  way,  in  the  region  of  invention,  se- 
cured to  one  for  a  limited  period  as  a  com- 
pensation for  having  first  discovered  it" 
(Vose  v.  Singer,  4  Allen  (Mass.)  226,  230, 
81  Am.  Dec.  696,  where  it  is  said  to  be 
analogous  to  a  right  of  way  or  a  right  to 
collect  tolls);  "the  exclusive  liberty  con- 
ferred by  letters  patent  from  the  sovereign 
on  an  inventor  or  his  alienee  of  making  and 
vending  articles  according  to  his  invention " 
(Avery  v.  Wilson,  20  Fed.  856,  858);  "the 
right,  protected  by  letters  patent,  to  use  the 
process,  combination,  or  appliance,  discovered 
by  the  patentee,  for  the  production  of  a  cer- 
tain result"  (Com.  v.  Central  Dist.,  etc., 
Tel.  Co.,  145  Pa.  St.  121,  127,  22  Atl.  841, 
27  Am.  St.  Rep.  677 )  ;  "  the  right  to  make, 
use  or  vend  a  patented  invention,  or  inven- 
tions claimed  to  be  patented "  (.State  v. 
Peck,  25  Ohio  St.  26,  28)  ;  a  right  which  is 
said  to  "  resemble  a  franchise  in  being  a 


privilege  which  concerns,  and  is  intended 
to  benefit  the  public,  which  depends  for  ex- 
istence and  preservation  upon  the  authority 
which  confers  it  "  ( Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
State,  87  Md.  687,  698,  40  Atl.  1074,  67 
Am.  St.  Rep.  371)  ;  it  has  also  been  said  to 
be  an  exclusive  right,  a  monopoly  (Gilbert 
El.  R.  Co.  v.  Kobbe,  70  N.  Y.  361,  370;  King 
v.  Platt,  37  N.  Y.  155,  4  Transcr.  App.  19, 
3  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  434,  35  How.  Pr.  23 )  ;  and 
is  "  incorporeal  property,  not  susceptible  of 
actual  delivery  or  possession"  (Waterman 
v.  Mackenzie,  138  U.  S.  252,  260,  11  S.  Ct. 
334,  34  L,  ed.  923). 

"  Patented."— A  thing  is  "patented"  by 
the  actual  issuance  of  the  patent  under  the 
seal  of  the  government,  speaking  the  exercise 
of  sovereign  will,  investing  the  patentee  with 
the  grant  of  a  monopoly,  and  does  not  mean 
the  preliminary  proceedings.  Edison  Electric 
Light  Co.  v.  Waring  Electric  Co.,  59  Fed. 
358,  364. 

2.  "A  patent  does  not  confer  even  the  right 
to  use  the  invention.     The  inventor  had  that 
right   before.      It    is    merely   an    incorporeal 
right   to   exclude  others  from  using   the   in- 
vention  throughout   the    United    States   con- 
ferred  by   the   government   upon   compliance 
with     certain      requirements."       Jewett      v. 
Atwood    Suspender    Co.,    100    Fed.    647,    648. 
See    also    Patterson   v.   Kentucky,    97    U.    S. 
501,  24  L.  ed.  1115;   Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11 
Wall.   (U.  S.)    516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Bloomer  v. 
McQuewan,   14  How.    (U.  S.)    539,  14  L.  ed. 
532 ;     Fruit-Cleaning    Co.    v.    Fresno    Home- 
Packing   Co.,   94   Fed.   845. 

The  government  makes  no  transfer  to  the 
patentee  of  a  right  preferred,  or  estate  there- 
tofore vested  in  itself. —  The  essential  right 
is  in  the  inventor  before  he  obtains  the 
patent.  Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry 
Electric  Co.,  59  Fed.  295,  296,  8  C.  C.  A. 
129. 

3.  Dudley  i;.  Mayhew,  3  N.  Y.  9;   Patter- 
son  v.   Kentucky,   97   U.   S.   501,   24  L.   ed. 

[I,  A,  2] 


816     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


3.  CONSIDERATION  FOR  GRANT.     In  order  that  inventions  may  be  disclosed  to  the 
public  so  that  all  may  obtain  the  benefits,4  the  state  grants  to  the  inventor  the 
exclusive  right  to  make,  use,  and  vend  the  invention  for  a  limited  time  on  condi- 
tion that  the  inventor  furnish  such  full,  clear,  and  exact  description  of  the  inven- 
tion as  will  enable  those  skilled  in  the  art  to  which  it  relates,  or  to  which  it  is 
most  nearly  related,  to  make  and  use  it  after  the  expirations  of  the  patent.5 

4.  CREATION  OF  STATUTE.     The  exclusive  right  which  inventors  have  to  their 
inventions  is  statutory,6  and  therefore  statutory  provisions  must  be  complied  with 
in  all  essentials.7 

5.  CONTRACT.     While  a  patent  is  a  grant,  it  also  has  the  elements  of  a  contract, 
since  it  is  based  upon  consideration  flowing  from  the  inventor  to  the  public  repre- 
sented by  the  officials  of  state.8 

6.  MONOPOLY.     While,  under  the  patent  laws,  a  patent  creates  a  monopoly,9  it 
is  not  a  monopoly  of  what  existed  before  and  belonged  to  others — which  is  the 
true  idea  of  a  morioply  —  but  is  a  monopoly  of  what  did  not  exist  before  and 
what  belongs  to  the  patentee.10     In  consequence  it  does  not  create  an  odious 

nopoly,11  and  the  rights  of  patentees  thereunder  are  to  be  liberally  construed,12 


1115;  Gayler  v.  Wilder,  10  How.  (U.  S.) 
477,  13  L.  ed.  504;  Wilson  v.  Rousseau,  4 
How.  (U.  S.)  646,  11  L.  ed.  1141;  Wheaton 
l?.  Peters,  8  Pet.  (U.  S.)  591,  8  L.  ed.  1055; 
In  re  Dann,  129  Fed.  495;  Rein  v.  Clayton, 
37  Fed.  354,  3  L.  R.  A.  78:  American  Hide, 
etc.,  Splitting,  etc.,  Mach  Co.  v.  American 
Tool,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  302,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  284,  Holmes  503;  Latta  v.  Shawk, 
14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,116,  1  Bond  259,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  465;  Heaton-Peninsular  Button 
Fastener  Co.  v.  Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  78 
Off.  Gaz.  171.  And  see  infra,  I,  A,  4. 

4.  The   benefit   to   the   public   by   the   dis- 
closure of  inventions  is  the  primary  consider- 
ation for  the  grant  of   patents    (Kendall  v. 
Winsor,  21  How.   (U.  S.)   322,  16  L.  ed.  165; 
Grant   v.   Raymond,    6   Pet.    (U,   S.)    218,   8 
L.  ed.   376;    Rubber  Tire  Wheel  Co.  v.  Mil- 
waukee Rubber  Works  Co.,  154  Fed.  358,  83 
C.    C.    A.    336;    International    Tooth    Crown 
Co.  17.   Hanks'  Dental   Assoc.    Ill   Fed.   916; 
Liardet  v.  Johnson,  Buller  N.   P.   76;    New- 
bery  v.   James,   2   Meriv.  446,    16   Rev.   Rep. 
195;    35    Eng.    Reprint    1011),    the    interests 
of  the  public  in  the  granting  of  patents  be- 
ing paramount  to  those  of  inventors    (War- 
ner v.  Smith,  13  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    111). 

The  purpose  of  granting  temporary  mo- 
nopoly is  to  induce  disclosure.  Gayler  v. 

Wilder,  11  How.   (U.  S.)   477,  13  L.  ed.  504; 

Carr  v.  Rice,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,440,  1  Fish. 

Pat.  Cas.  198;  Goodyear  v.  New  Jersey 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,563,  1  Fish. 

Pat.  Cas.  626,  Wall.  Jr.  356. 

5.  U.    S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §    4888    [U.    S. 
Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.   3383].     See  infra,  V, 
A,  2,  a. 

6.  Marsh  v.  Nichols,  128  U.  S.  605,  9  S.  Ct. 
168,    32    L.   ed.    538;    Gayler   v.    Wilder,    10 
How.    (U.  S.)    477,   13  L.  ed.  504;   U.  S.  i?. 
American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  32  Fed.  591;   Latta 
V.   Shawk,    14    Fed.   Cas.   No.   8,116,    1   Bond 
259,  1   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465.     And  see  supra, 
I,  A,  2. 

7.  Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Pet.    (U.  S.)    1, 
7  L.  ed.   327;    U.  S.  v.  American  Bell   Tel. 
Co.,  32  Fed.  591. 

[I,  A,  8] 


8.  A   patent   is   a   contract   and  the  same 
rules  of  construction  apply  as  in  other  con- 
tracts.    National  Hollow  Brake-Beam  Co.  v. 
Interchangeable    Brake-Beam    Co.,    106    Fed. 
693,  45  C.  C.  A.  544;  Atty.-Gen.  v.  Rumford 
Chemical    Works,    32    Fed.    608;     Harris    v. 
Allen,  15  Fed.  106.     A  patent  is  a  contract. 
O.  H.  Jewell  Filter  Co.  v.  Jackson,  140  Fed. 
340,   72    C.    C.   A.    304;    Barter   v.   Smith,   2 
Can.  Exch.  455. 

Renewal  or  extension. —  There  is  no  con- 
tract by  the  state  that  the  public  may  use 
the  invention  at  the  expiration  of  the  patent 
and  therefore  the  state  may  renew  or  ex- 
tend the  patent.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  8  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,559,  Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb  Pat. 
Ca*.  68  [reversed  in  3  Wheat.  454,  4  L.  ed. 
433]. 

9.  Bement   v.    National    Harrow    Co.,    186 
U.  S.  70,  22  S.  Ct.  747,  46  L.  ed.  1058. 

10.  Davoll  v.  Brown,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,662, 
2   Robb  Pat.   Cas.  303,   1   Woodb.   &  M.  53; 
Goodyear  v.  New  Jersey  Cent.  R.  Co.,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,563,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  626,  2  Wall. 
Jr.   356;    Singer  v.  Walmsley,   22   Fed.    Cas. 
No.   12,900,   1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  558. 

11.  Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,518,   1    Robb    Pat.   Cas.   734,   742,   2   Story 
164,   3   Sumn.  535;   Goodyear  v.  New  Jersey 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,563,  1  Fish. 
Pat.    Cas.    626,   2    Wall.   Jr.    356;    Parker    v. 
Stiles,    18    Fed.   Cas.   No.    10,749,   Fish.    Pat. 
Rep.    319,    5    McLean    44;     Wickersham    v. 
.Singer,   29   Fed.    Cas.   No.    17,610,   Me  Arthur 
Pat.     Cas.    645;     Heaton-Peninsular    Button 
Fastener    Co.    v.    Eureka    Specialty    Co.,    78 
Off.  Gaz.  171;  Barter  v.  Smith,  2  Can.  Exch. 
455. 

Statute  of  monopolies. — Patents  are  exempt 
from  the  statute  of  monopolies.  Peck  v. 
Hindes,  67  L.  J.  Q.  B.  272. 

12.  De  la  Vergne  Refrigerating  Mach.  Co. 
v.    Featherstone,    147    U.   S.   209,    13    S.    Ct. 
283,  37   L.  ed.    138;   Lein  v.  Myers,  97   Fed. 
607;     McBride    v.    Kingman    72    Fed.     908; 
Fitch  v.  Bragg,  8  Fed.  588;  Goodyear  v.  New 
Jersey  Cent.  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,563, 
1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    626,    2    Wall.    Jr.    356; 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     817 


and  in  harmony  with  the  intent  and  purpose  of  the  patent  law  and  doubts  resolved 
in  their  favor.13 

B.  Rights  of  Patentees  u —  1.  NATURE  OF  RIGHT.  The  grant  of  a  patent  gives 
nothing  to  the  patentee  except  the  right  to  exclude  others  f  rom  making,  using,  or 
selling  his  invention  ; 15  but  the  right  is  transferable  by  an  instrument  in  writing.16 

2.  TERRITORY  COVERED  BY  RIGHT.     The  right  conferred  by  a  patent  extends  to  all 
territory  mentioned  in  the  grant  and  in  the  statutes  authorizing  the  grant.17     In 
the  United  States  it  extends  throughout  the  several  states  and  territories,18  but 
not  to  unorganized  territory  in  its  possession  ; 19  nor  are  the  rights  of  the  patentee 
operative  outside  of  the  limits  of  the  United  States.20     While  the  rights  extend 
to  American  vessels  on  the  high  seas,21  they  do  not  extend  to  foreign  vessels  in  our 
ports.22 

3.  NEED  NOT  USE  INVENTION  OR  LICENSE  OTHERS  TO  USE.     In  the  United  States 
the  inventor  does  not  forfeit  his  patent  or  his  right  to  exclude  others  from  using 
his  invention  by  his  failure  to  make  use  of  it  himself,23  or  his  refusal  to  license 
others  to  use  it  upon  reasonable  terms.24     The  question  of  licensing  others  to  use 
his  invention  is  one  which  the  patentee  alone  has  the  right  to  answer,  and  courts 
cannot  lawfully  compel  him  to  make  use  of  his  invention,  or  to  permit  others  to 
use  it  against  his  will.25     In  many  countries  it  is  required  that  the  invention  be 
worked  or  the  patent  is  void.26 


Wickersham    v.    Singer,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,610,   McArthur  Pat.   Cas.   645. 

Patentees  are  a  meritorious  class  and  all 
the  aid  and  protection  which  the  law  allows 
this  court  will  cheerfully  give  them.  Hollo- 
way  v.  Whiteley,  4  Wall.  (U.  S.)  522,  18 
L.  ed.  335. 

13.  McMichael,  etc.,  Mfg.   Co.  v.   Stafford, 
105  Fed.  380. 

14.  As   affected   by   local  laws    see   infra, 
XII,  B. 

15.  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  501,  24 
L.   ed.    1115;    Seymour  v.   Osborne,    11    Wall. 
(U.  S.)   516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Jewett  v.  Atwood 
Suspender  Co.,  100  Fed.  647. 

In  Canada  it  is  held  that  the  patentee  can- 
not import  or  permit  others  to  import 
patented  articles  without  invalidating  patent. 
Anderson  Tire  Co.  v.  American  Dunlop  Tire 
Co.,  5  Can.  Exch.  82 ;  Wright  v.  Bell  Tel.  Co., 
2  Can.  Exch.  552;  Mitchell  v.  Hancock  In- 
spirator Co.,  2  Can.  Exch.  539;  Barter  v. 
Smith,  2  Can.  Exch.  455. 

16.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4898. 

17.  Brown  v.  Duchesne,   19  How.    (U.  S.) 
183,    15   L.   ed.   595. 

In  England  the  patent  is  effective  through- 
out the  United  Kingdom  and  the  Isle  of 
Man.  Act  (1883),  §  16;  46  &  47  Viet.  c.  57. 

18.  U.  S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4884    [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3381]. 

19.  Opinion  Atty.-Gen.,  113  Off.  Gaz.  2503, 
the  doctrine  being  applied  in  respect  of  the 
Panama  canal  zone. 

20.  Brown  v.  Duchesne,   19  How.    (U.  S.) 
183,  15  L.  ed.  595. 

21.  Gardiner    v.    Howe,    9    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
5,219,  2   Cliff.  462. 

22.  Brown  v.  Duchesne,   19  How.    (U.  S.) 
183,  15  L.  ed.  595. 

23.  James  v.  Campbell,  104  U.  S.  356,  26 
L.   ed.   786;    Packard  v.   Lacing-Stud   Co.,   70 
Fed.  66,   16  C.  C.  A.  639;   Masseth  v.  John- 
ston,  59  Fed.  613;    Campbell  Printing-Press, 

[52] 


etc.,  Co.  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  49  Fed.  930 
[disapproving  Hoe  v.  Knap,  27  Fed.  204]. 

Although  never  used  commercially,  the 
patent  is  prima  facie  valid.  McKay-Cope- 
land  Lasting  Mach.  Co.  v.  Copeland  Rapid- 
Last  Mfg.  Co.,  77  Fed.  306. 

Non-user  of  a  patent  does  not  cause  a  for- 
feiture of  a  patent,  nor  ordinarily  does  it 
justify  a  court  of  equity  in  withholding  in- 
junctive  relief.  Continental  Paper  Bag  Co. 
17.  Eastern  Paper  Bag  Co.,  210  U.  S.  405,  28 
S.  Ct.  748. 

In  England  the  patentee,  if  he  fails  to 
manufacture  under  his  patent  within  four 
years  after  its  grant,  may  have  it  revoked. 
He  may  also  be  required  to  grant  a  license 
under  it  on  terms  to  be  fixed.  Act  (1907), 
§§  27,  24. 

24.  Wilson  v.  Rousseau,   4  How.    (U.   S.) 
646,    11   L.  ed.    1141;    Grant  v.   Raymond,   6 
Pet.    (U.   S.)    218,   8  L.  ed.  376;   Masseth  v. 
Reiber,    59     Fed.     614;     Campbell     Printing- 
Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  49  Fed. 
930;   Consolidated  Roller-Mill  Co.  v.  Coombs, 
39  Fed.  803 ;  U.  S.  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.', 
29      Fed.      17;      Heaton-Peninsular     Button- 
Fastener    Co.    v.    Eureka    Specialty    Co.,    78 
Off.    Gaz.    171.      Contra,    dictum,   in   Hoe    v. 
Knap,  27  Fed.  204. 

25.  Consolidated  Roller-Mill  Co.  v.  Coombs, 
39   Fed.   803. 

26.  The     patentee     must    actually    manu- 
facture   the    article    in    Canada    within    two 
years  after  the  patent,  and  must  stand  ready 
to  furnish  the  article  at  a   reasonable  price 
or  license  others  to  do  so.     Importation  from 
abroad    invalidates    the    patent.      Power    v. 
Griffin,  33  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  39;  Hambly  v.  Al- 
bright, 7  Can.  Exch.  363;  Auer  Incandescent 
Light  Mfg.  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  5  Can.  Exch.  243 ; 
Royal  Electric  Co.  v.  Edison  Electric  Co.,  2 
Can.  Exch.  576;   Brook  v.  Broadhead,  2  Can. 
Exch.  562;  Toronto  Tel.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bell  Tel. 
Co.,   2   Can.   Exch.   524;    Barter   v.   Smith,   2 

[I,  B,  3] 


818     [30  Cye.J 


PATENTS 


4.  RIGHT  OF  GOVERNMENT   TO   USE   INVENTION.     Although   the  consent   of  the 
owner  of  a  patented  device  is  not  positively  necessary  in  order  to  enable  the 
United  States  government  to  use  the  invention  described  in  the  letters  patent, 
particularly  in  cases  where  it  relates  to  the  mode  of  construction  of  implements 
of  warfare  needed  by  the  government,27  it  has  no  right  to  use  a  patented  inven- 
tion without  compensation  to  the  patentee.28     When  it  grants  letters  patent  for  a 
new  invention  or  discovery  in  the  arts,  it  confers  upon  the  patentee  an  exclusive 
property  in  the  patented  invention  which  cannot  be  appropriated  or  used  by  the 
government  itself,  without  just  compensation,  any  more  than  it  can  appropriate 
or  use  without  compensation  land  which  has  been   patented  to  a  private  pur- 
chaser.29    Nevertheless,  no  injunction  can  be  obtained  against  the  government  or 
against  an  official  acting  for  the  government,80  unless  expressly  permitted  by  act 
of  congress,81  nor  can  suit  be  maintained  against  the  government  for  damages  for 
infringement.     It  is  not  liable  to  suits  founded  in  tort.82     While  compensation 
can  be  obtained  by  suit  on  an  express  or  implied  contract,  this  is  the  only  method 
by  which  it  may  be  obtained.83 

5.  GOVERNMENT  CANNOT  CANCEL  PATENT.     In  the  United  States  a  patent  cannot 
be  canceled  by  any  officer  of  the  government,84  but  may  be  canceled  upon  an 


Can.   Exch.    455;    Consolidated    Car   Heating 
Co.  v .  Came,  18  Quebec  Super.  Ct.  44. 

27.  Dashiell  v.  Grosvenor,  74  Off.  Gaz.  500. 

28.  Bement  v.  National   Harrow   Co.,    186 
U.    S.    70,    22    S.    Ct.    747,   46   L.    ed.    1058; 
Russell  v.  U.   S.,   182  U.  S.   516,  21   S.  Ct. 
899,  45  L.  ed.  1210;   Belknap  v.  Schild,   161 
U.    S.    10,    16    S.    Ct.    443,    40    L.    ed.    599; 
U.  S.  v.  Berdan  Firearms  Mfg.  Co.,  156  U.  S. 
552,  15  S.  Ct.  420,  39  L.  ed.  530;  Schillinger 
V.  U.  S.,   155  U.  S.   163,  15  S.  Ct.  85,  39  L. 
ed.  108;  Hill  v.  U.  S.,  149  U.  S.  593,  13  S. 
Ct.   1011,  37  L.  ed.  862;   Solomons  v.  U.  S., 
137  U.  S.  342,  11   S.  Ct.  88,  34  L.  ed..  667; 
U.  S.  v.  Palmer,  128  U.  S.  262,  9  S.  Ct.  104, 
32  L.  ed.  442;  James  v.  Campbell,  104  U.  S. 
356,  26  L.  ed.  786 ;  Cammeyer  v.  Newton,  94 
U.  S.  225,  24  L.  ed.  72;  Morgan  v.  U.  S.,  14 
Wall.    (U.  S.)    531,  20  L.  ed.  738;   U.  S.  v. 
Burns,  12  Wall.    ill.  S.)   246,  20  L.  ed.  388; 
Gibbons  v.  U.  S.,  8  Wall.   (U.  S.)   269,  19  L. 
ed.  453;   McKeever  v.  U,  S.,  14  Ct.  Cl.  396; 
Heaton-Peninsular     Button-Fastener     Co.     v. 
Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25  C,  C. 
A.  267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728. 

In  England  the  patent  excludes  only  sub- 
jects, and  the  crown  reserves  the  right  to 
use  the  invention.  It,  however,  must  pay 
what  is  reasonable.  Act  (1883),  §  27;  46 
&  47  Viet.  c.  57.  In  re  Napier,  6  App.  Gas. 
174,  50  L.  J,  P.  C.  40,  29  Wkly.  Rep.  745; 
Dixon  v.  London  Small  Arms  Co.,  1  App. 
Cas.  632,  46  L.  J.  Q.  B.  617,  35  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  559,  25  Wkly.  Rep.  142;  Ex  p.  Pering, 
4  A.  &  E.  949,  6  N.  &  M.  472,  31  E.  C.  L. 
413;  Feather  v.  Reg.,  6  B.  &  S.  257,  35 
L.  J.  Q.  B.  200,  12  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  114,  118 
E.  C.  L.  257. 

In  Canada  the  government  may  use  any 
patented  invention,  paying  what  is  just.  St. 
35  Viet.  c.  26,  §  21. 

29.  U.  S.  v.  Palmer,  128  U.  S.  262,  9  S.  Ct. 
104,  32  L.  ed.  442;   James  y.  Campbell,  104 
U.  S.  356,  26  L.  ed.  786. 

The  United  States  has  no  such  prerogative 
as  that  which  is  claimed  by  the  sovereigns  of 

[I,  B,  4] 


England,  by  which  it  can  reserve  to  itself, 
either  expressly  or  by  implication,  a  su- 
perior dominion  and  use  in  that  which  it 
grants  by  letters  patent  to  those  who  entitle 
themselves  to  such  grants.  The  government 
of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  the  citizen, 
is  subject  to  the  constitution;  and  when  it 
grants  a  patent  the  grantee  is  entitled  to 
it  as  a  matter  of  right,  and  does  not  receive 
it,  as  was  originally  supposed  to  be  the  case 
in  England,  as  a  matter  of  grace  and  favor. 
James  v.  Campbell,  104  U.  S.  356,  26  L.  ed. 
786. 

30.  Belknap   v.    Schild,    161    U.    S.    10,    16 
S.  Ct.  443,  40  L.  ed.  599 ;  International  Postal 
Supply  Co.  17.  Bruce,  194  U.  S.  601,  24  S.  Ct. 
820,  48  L.  ed.  1134. 

31.  Belknap   v.   Schild,    161    U.    S.    10,    16 
S.  Ct.  443,  40  L.  ed.  599. 

32.  Belknap   v.    Schild,    161    U.    S.    10,   16 
S.   Ct.  443,  40  L.  ed.   599;   U.   S.   V.   Berdan 
Firearms  Mfg.  Co.,  156  U.  S.  552,  15  S.  Ct. 
420,  39  L.  ed.  530;   Schillinger  v.  U.  S.,  155 
U.  S.  163,  15  S.  Ct.  85,  39  L.  ed.  108;  Harley 
v.  U.  S.,  116  Off.  Gaz.  875. 

Suits  against  state  or  county. —  Suit  can- 
not be  brought  against  a  state  for  infringe- 
ment, but  may  be  brought  against  a  county 
which  is  a  quasi-municipal  corporation. 
May  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  27  Fed.  695;  May  v. 
Mercer  County,  41  Off.  Gaz.  815;  May  v. 
Rails  County,  40  Off.  Gaz.  575. 

33.  Belknap   v.   Schild,    161    U.    S.    10,    16 
S.  Ct.  443,  40  L.  ed.   599;   U.   S.   v.  Berdan 
Firearms  Mfg.  Co.,  156  U.  S.  552,  15  S.  Ct. 
420,    39   L.   ed.    530;    U.    S.,   v.    Palmer,    128 
U.  S.  262,  9  S.  Ct.  104,  32  L.  ed.  442;  U.  S. 
v,   Burns,    12   Wall.    (U.   S.)    246,   20   L.  ed. 
388 ;       Heaton-Peninsular       Button- Fastener 
Co.   v.   Eureka    Specialty    Co.,    77    Fed.    288, 
25  C.  C.  A.  267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728;  Harley  v. 
U.  S.,  116  Off.  Gaz.  875;  International  Postal 
Supply  Co.  t;.  Bruce,  194  U.  S.  601,  24  S.  Ct. 
820,  48  L.  ed.  1134. 

34.  U.   S.  v.  American  Bell  Tel.   Co.,   128 
U.  S.   315,  364,  9  S.  Ct.  90,  35  L.  ed.  450, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     819 


adjudication  by  the  courts  upon  proper  action  instituted  by  the  government  for 
that  purpose.85 

C.  Patents  as  Property36 — 1.  PERSONAL  PROPERTY.     A  patent  right  is  per- 
sonal property,37  and  in  so  far  as  its  incorporeal  nature  permits  is  subject  to  the 
general  laws  relating  to  such  property,38  and  is  surrounded  by  the  same  rights 
and  sanctions  which  attend  all  other  property.89 

2.  LOCATION.     It  has  no  definite  situs  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  any 
court  but  is  coexistent  in  every  part  of  the  United  States.40 

3.  How  REACHED  BY  THE  COURTS.     It  can  be  reached  by  the  courts  only  by 
securing  jurisdiction  of  the  owner.41 

D.  Constitutional  Authority  For  Patents  — 1.  IN  GENERAL.     In  the  United 
States  congress  has  power  to  grant  patents  under  the  constitutional  provision  that 
it  shall  have  power  "  to  promote  the  Progress  of  Science  and  useful  Arts,  by 
securing  for  limited  Times  to  Authors  and  Inventors  the  exclusive  Right  to  their 
respective   Writings  and  Discoveries."42     The  power  of  congress  to  grant  to 
inventors  is  general,  and  it  is  in  their  discretion  to  say  when,  for  what  length  of 
time,  and  under  what  circumstances  the  patent  for  an  invention  shall  be  granted.43 
The  power  may,  under  the  constitution,  be  exercised  in  making  special  grants 
to  inventors,44  and  it  may  patent  what  is  in  public  use.45     Congress  cannot,  how- 


in  which  it  was  said :  "  The  only  authority 
competent  to  set  a  patent  aside,  or  to  annul 
it,  or  to  correct  it,  for  any  reason  what- 
ever, is  vested  in  the  judicial  department 
of  the  government,  and  this  can  only  be 
effected  by  proper  proceedings  taken  in  the 
courts  of  the  United  States." 

35.  Michigan  Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rust,   168 
U.    S.    589,    18    S.    Ct.    208,    42    L.    ed.    591; 
U.   S.  v.  American  Bell  Tel.   Co.,    128  U.   S. 
315,   9    S.    Ct.   90,   32   L.   ed.   450;    Moore  v. 
Bobbins,  96  U.  ,S.  530,  24  L.  ed.  848;   Prov- 
idence   Rubber    Co.    v.    Goodyear,    9    Wall. 
(U.  S.)  788,  19  L.  ed.  566;  U.  S.  v.  American 

Bell  Tel.  Co.,  79  Off.  Gaz.   1362. 

A  private  individual  cannot  maintain  an 
action  to  cancel  a  patent.  Mowry  v.  Whit- 
ney, 14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  434,  20  L.  ed.  858. 

In  England  a  patent  may  be  annulled  by 
proceeding  in  court  on  petition  of  the  attor- 
ney-general or  a  party  interested.  Act 
(1883),  §  26;  46  &  47  Viet.  c.  57. 

36.  As  passing  to  trustees  in  bankruptcy 
see  BANKRUPTCY,  5  Cyc.  346: 

As  subject  to  seizure  and  sale  by  execution 
see  EXECUTIONS,  17  Cyc.  945  et  seq. 

Subjection  to  payment  of  debts  in  creditors' 
suits  see  CREDITORS'  SUITS,  12  Cyc.  31. 

37.  McCormick    Harvesting    Mach.    Co.    v. 
Aultman-Miller  Co.,  169  U.  S.  606,  18  S.  Ct. 
443,  42  L.  ed.  875;  De  la  Vergne  Refrigerat- 
ing   Mach.    Co.    v.    Featherstone,    147    U.    S. 
209,   13   S.  Ct.  283,  37  L.  ed.   138;   U.  S.  v. 
Palmer,   128  U.   S.  262,   9  ,S.  Ct.   104,  32  L. 
ed.  442;   Cammeyer  v.  Newton,  94  U.  S.  225, 
24  L.  ed.  72;    Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall. 
(U.  S.)    516,  20  L.  ed.  33. 

38.  Patents  pass  with  the  personal  estate 
to  the   legal   representatives.     De  la  Vergne 
Refrigerating  Mach.  Co.  r.  Featherstone,  147 
U.  S.  209,  13  S.  Ct.  283,  37  L.  ed.  138;  Wil- 
son v.  Rousseau,  4  How.    (U.  S.)    646,  11  L. 
ed.  1141;  Heaton-Peninsular  Button  Fastener 
Co.  v.  Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  78  Off.  Gaz.  171. 

Receiver   of  corporation.— Patents  do  not 


vest  in  the  receiver  of  a  corporation.  Dick 
v.  Oil  Well  .Supply  Co.,  25  Fed.  105;  Dick 
v.  Struthers,  25  Fed.  103;  Adams  v.  Howard, 
22  Fed.  656,  23  Blatchf.  27. 

39.  Densmore  v.  Scofield,  102  U.  S.  375,  26 
L.  ed.  214, 

40.  Ager   v.   Murray,    105    U.    S.    126,    26 
L.   ed.    942;    Stevens   v.    Gladding,    17    How. 
(U.  S.)   447,  15  L.  ed.  155. 

41.  Ager   v.    Murray,    105    U.    S.    126,    26 
L.  ed.  942;  Jewett  v.  Atwood  Suspender  Co., 
100  Fed.  647 ;  Wilson  v.  Martin-Wilson  Auto- 
matic Fire  Alarm  Co.,  52  Off.  Gaz.  901. 

42.  U.  S.  Const,  art.  1,  §  8. 

In  England  the  common  law  and  the  stat- 
ute of  monopolies  permit  the  crown  within 
reasonable  limits  to  grant  the  exclusive  right 
to  trade  in  a  new  invention.  Reg.  v.  Prosser, 
11  Beav.  306,  13  Jur.  71,  18  L.  J.  Ch.  35, 
50  Eng.  Reprint  834;  Caldwell  v.  Vanvlis- 
sengen,  9  Hare  415,  16  Jur.  115,  21  L.,  J. 
Ch.  97,  41  Eng.  Ch.  415,  68  Eng.  Reprint 
571.  The  judicial  committee  of  the  privy 
council  may  confirm  the  grant  of  a  patent. 
Re  Card,  12  Jur.  507,  6  Moore  P.  C.  207,  13 
Eng.  Reprint  663;  In  re  Honiball,  9  Moore 
P.  C.  378,  14  Eng.  Reprint  340;  In  re  Robin- 
son, 5  Moore  P.  C.  65,  13  Eng.  Reprint  414. 
The  statute  for  monopolies,  section  6,  per- 
mitted the  granting  of  patents  for  the  term 
of  fourteen  years  to  the  true  and  first  in- 
ventor. St.  21  Jac.  I,  c.  3. 

43.  Fire-Extinguisher    Case,    21    Fed.    40; 
Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,518, 
1    Robb   Pat.   Cas.  734,  742,  2   Story   164,   3 
Sumn.  535. 

44.  Bloomer   v.    Stolley,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,559,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  376,  5  McLean  158. 

45.  McClurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  How.   (U.  S.) 
202,  11  L.  ed.  102;  Page  v.  Holmes  Burglar 
Alarm  Tel.   Co.,  1   Fed.  304,  17  Blatchf.  485 
(holding  that  the  consent  of  the  inventor  to 
the  public  use  of  his  invention,  or  the  with- 
drawal of  his  application  for  a  patent,  does 
not  vest  any  right  of  property  in  the  general 

[I.  D,  1] 


820     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


ever,  take  away  the  right  of  a  party  to  use  an  article  previously  purchased  by 
him.46 

2.  GRANT  TO  INVENTORS  NOT  TO  IMPORTERS.     Congress  has  no  authority  to  grant 
patents  to  any  one  save  inventors  and  discoverers,  and  hence  cannot  grant  a 
patent  to  a  party  who  merely  imports  a  device  not  before  known  and  used  in  this 
country.47     The  patentee  must  be  the  inventor.48     In  England,  however,  one  who 
imports  knowledge  of  an  invention  from  abroad  is  entitled  to  a  patent.49 

3.  PATENTS  GRANTED  BY  STATE.     While  some  states  granted  patents  for  inven- 
tions before  the  passage  of  a  patent  law  by  the  United  States  they  have  no  such 
right  now  that  congress  has  assumed  control  of  the  matter.50 

II.  SUBJECTS  OF  PATENTS. 

A.  Patentable  Subject-Matter—  1.  IN  GENERAL.  In  the  United  States 
patentable  subject-matter  consists  of  any  new  and  useful  art,  machine,  manufac- 
ture, or  composition  of  matter,  or  any  new  and  useful  improvement  thereof,51 
or  any  new,  original,  and  ornamental  design  for  any  article  of  manufacture.52 

2,  STATUTORY  CLASSES  OF  INVENTION.     Nothing  is  patentable,  however  beneficial 
and  novel,  unless  it  comes  within  one  of  the  statutory  classes  of  patentable 
inventions.58 

3.  PHYSICAL  THINGS  ONLY  ARE  PATENTABLE.     The  subject-matter  of  patents  is 
limited  to  physical  things  or  acts  producing  physical  effects  and  does  not  include 
mental  theories  or  plans  of  action.54     An  idea  is  not  patentable,  but  only  the 


public,  in  the  sense  of  the  fifth  amendment 
to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  so 
as  to  prevent  the  subsequent  allowance  of  a 
patent  for  such  invention,  by  act  of  con- 
gress, unless  there  was,  in  a  particular  case, 
a  reduction  of  the  invention  to  use  and 
practice,  by  its  embodiment  in  some  appa- 
ratus prior  to  the  issue  of  such  patent. 
Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,518, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  734,  742,  2  Story  164, 
3  Sumn.  535. 

46.  Bloomer  v.  McQuewan,  14  How.  (U.  S.) 
539,   14  L.  ed.  532. 

47.  Livingston    v.    Van    Ingen,    9    Johns. 
(N.   Y.)    507. 

48.  Kennedy  c.  Hazelton,  128  U.  S.  667,  9 
S.  Ct.  202,  32  L.  ed.  576;  McClurg  v.  Kings- 
land,    1    How.    (U.    S.)    202,    11    L.   ed.    102; 
Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,518, 

1  Eobb  Pat.   Cas.   734,   742,   2    Story   164,  3 
Sumn.  535;   Pitts  v.  Hall,   19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  441; 
Sparkman  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,- 
208,    1    Blatchf.    205,    Fish.    Pat.    Rep.    110; 
Washburn  v.  Gould,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,214, 

2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  206,  3  .Story  122. 

49.  In  re  Worth,  12  Ch.  D.  303,  28  Wkly. 
Rep.  329;  Plimpton  v.  Malcolmson,  3  Ch.  D. 
531,   45  L.  J.  Ch.  505,   34  L.  T.  Rep.  N.   S. 
340;   Nickels  v.  Ross,  8  C.  B.  679,  65  E.  C. 
L.  6/9;   In  re  Claridge,  7  Moore  P.   C.  394, 
13  Eng.  Reprint  932. 

Where  a  patent  is  taken  out  as  for  an  orig- 
inal invention  on  an  invention  communicated 
from  abroad,  it  is  void.  Milligan  r.  Marsh, 
2  Jur.  N.  S.  1083:  Steedman  «?.  Marsh,  2 
Jur.  N.  S.  391.  But  see  Beard  v.  Egerton,  3 
C.  B.  97,  10  Jur.  643,  15  L.  J.  C.  P.  270, 
54  E.  C.  L.  97. 

50.  The    power    of    congress    is    exclusive. 

[I.  D,  1] 


Evans   v.  Robinson,    8    Fed.    Cas.   No.   4,571, 
Brunn.    Col.   Cas.   400. 

51.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4886;   Provi- 
dence    Rubber     Co.    v.     Goodyear,     9     Wall. 
(U.  S.)   788,  19  L.  ed.  566. 

Constitutionality  of  statute. —  U.  S.  Rev. 
St.  (1878)  §  4886  [amended  by  U.  S.  Comp. 
St.  (1901)  p.  3382],  is  not  unconstitutional 
because  it  provides  that  inventions  or  dis- 
coveries may  be  either  arts,  machines,  manu- 
factures, or  compositions  of  matter,  and  that 
presumptively  no  two  of  these  subjects  are 
one  invention.  Inventions  have  been  thus 
distinguished  continuously  since  1793,  and  the 
supreme  court  of  the  United  .States  has 
frequently  recognized  the  validity  of  this 
division.  In  re  Frasch,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
25. 

Process  and  machine  for  performing  it  may 
be  patented.  Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Good- 
year, 9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  788,  19  L.  ed.  566; 
Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dayton 
Fan,  etc.,  Co.,  106  Fed.  724  [affirmed  in  118 
Fed.  562,  55  C.  C.  A.  390]. 

52.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.     (1878)     §    4929,    as 
amended    May    9,    1902.      See    infra,    II,    G. 

53.  Fond  du  Lac  County  v.  May,  137  U.  S. 
395,   11   S.  Ct.  98,  34  L.  ed.   714;   Singer  v. 
Walmsley,  22   Fed.  Cas.  No.   12,900,    1   Fish. 
Pat.   Cas.   558. 

54.  National  Meter  Co.  v.  Neptune  Meter 
Co.,   122   Fed.   82   [affirmed  in   129   Fed.   124, 
63  C.  C.  A.  626] ;  McEwan  Bros.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Ewan,   91    Fed.   787;   Andrews   v.   Carman,   1 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    371,    2    Ban.    &    A.    277,    13 
Blatchf.   307,   9   Off.   Gaz.    1011;    Detmold   v. 
Reeves,   7   Fed.  Cas.  No.   3,831,   1    Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.    127;    Draper   p.  Potomska   Mills   Corp., 
7   Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,072,  3  Ban.  &  A.  214,   13 
Off.   Gaz.   276;    Judson  v.   Bradford,    14  Fed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     821 


means  for  utilizing  it  practically.55  The  mental  conception  must  have  been  sus- 
ceptible of  embodiment,  and  must  have  been  in  fact  embodied  in  some  mechanical 
device,  or  some  process  of  art.56 

4.  RESULT  OR  PRINCIPLE  NOT  PATENTABLE.     The  discovery  of  a  new  principle,57 
or  law  of  nature,58  or  an  end  or  result  to  be  accomplished,59  is  not  patentable.     A 


Gas.  No.  7,564,  3  Ban.  &  A.  539,  16  Off. 
Gaz.  171.  And  see  infra,  II,  B,  3;  III,  B,  3. 

Speculation  or  conjecture. — A  patent  can- 
not be  predicated  of  mere  speculation  or  con- 
jecture. Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Saranac  Lake  Electric  Light  Co.,  108  Fed. 
221. 

Plan  for  preserving  and  filing  bonds  not 
patentable.  Munson  v.  New  York,  124  U.  S. 
601,  8  S.  Ct.  622,  31  L.  ed.  586. 

Intellectual  notion  that  a  thing  could  be 
done  and  would  be  useful  is  not  patentable. 
Standard  Cartridge  Co.  v.  Peters  Cartridge 
Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23  C.  C.  A.  367  [affirming 
69  Fed.  408]. 

Where  the  patentee  has  not  invented  a  ma- 
chine which  will  do  what  he  claims,  his  pat- 
ent is  void.  Bloxam  v.  Elsee,  6  B.  &  C.  169, 
13  E.  C.  L.  88,  1  C.  &  P.  558,  12  E.  C.  L. 
320,  9  D.  &  R.  215,  5  L.  J.  K.  B.  O.  S.  104, 
R.  &  M.  187,  30  Rev.  Rep.  275. 

Discovery  of  new  function  for  old  device  is 
not  patentable.  Lane  Fox  v.  Kensington 
Electric  Co.,  [1892]  3  Ch.  424,  67  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  440. 

55.  Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co.  v.  Howard,  20 
Wall.    (U.  S.)    498,  22  L.  ed.   410;   Wheaton 
v.  Kendall,   85   Fed..  668;    Foote  v.   Silsby,  9 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    4,919,    2    Blatchf.    260;    Reed 
v.   Cutter,  20  Fed.   Cas.  No.   11,645,   2   Robb 
Pat.   Cas.   81,   1   Story  590;    Sloat  v.  Spring, 
22    Fed.   Cas.    No.    12,9480;    White    v.   Allen, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,535,  2  Cliff.  224,  2  Fish. 
Pat.   Cas.  440. 

56.  Detmold    v.   Reeves,    7    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
3,831. 

An  imperfect  and  incomplete  invention, 
resting  in  mere  theory,  or  in  intellectual 
notion,  or  in  uncertain  experiments,  and  not 
actually  reduced  to  practice  and  embodied  in 
some  distinct  machinery,  apparatus,  manu- 
facture, or  composition  of  matter,  is  not 
patentable.  Draper  v.  Potomska  Mills  Corp., 
7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,072,  3  Ban.  &  A.  214,  13 
Off.  Gaz.  276. 

57.  Le  Roy  v.  Tatham,   14  How.    (U.  S.) 
156,   14  L.  ed.   367,  22  How.    132,    16  L.  ed. 
366 ;    Cameron   Septic   Tank  Co.   v.   Saratoga 
Springs,    151    Fed.    242     [reversed    on    other 
grounds  in   159  Fed.  453] ;    National  Hollow 
Brake-Beam    Co.    t?.    Interchangeable    Brake- 
Beam    Co.,    106   Fed.   693,   45    C.   C.   A.   544; 
American    Strawboard    Co.    r.    Elkhart    Egg- 
Case    Co.,    84    Fed.    960;    Steam-Gauge,    etc., 
Co.   v.    St.   Louis    R.    Supplies   Mfg.    Co.,   25 
Fed.    491 ;    Bean   v.   Smallwood,    2    Fed.    Cas. 
No.    1,173,    2    Robb    Pat.    Cas.    133,    2    Story 
408;   Bell  v.  Daniels,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,247, 
1  Bond  212,   1   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  372;   Blanch- 
ard    v.    Sprague,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No.    1,518,    1 
Robb    Pat.    Cas.    734,    742,    2    Story    164,    3 
Sumn.  535;   Foote  ?-.  Silsby,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,919,  2  Blatchf.  260;  Shaw,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Love- 


joy,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,727,  7  Blatchf.  232; 
Singer  v.  Walmsley,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,900, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  558;  Smith  v.  Ely,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,043,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  339,  5  Mc- 
Lean 76  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  15 
How.  137,  14  L.  ed.  634] ;  Stone  v.  Sprague, 
23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,487,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  10, 

1  Story    270;    Whitney    v.    Carter,    29    Fed. 
Cas.   No.    17,583;    Wintermute   v.  Redington, 
30   Fed.  Cas.  No.    17,896,    1   Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
239;  Wyeth  v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,107, 

2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  23,  1  Story  273. 
Application  of  rule. — A  claim  for  the  art 

of  cutting  ice  by  an  apparatus  worked  by' 
any  power  other  than  human  is  a  claim  for 
an  abstract  principle  and  is  void.  Wyeth 
v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,107,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  23,  1  Story  273. 

58.  In  re  Kemper,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,687, 
Cranch  Pat.  Dec.  89,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  1; 
Morton  f.  New  York  Eye  Infirmary,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,865,  5  Blatchf.   116,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.    320;    Roberts    v.   Dickey,    20   Fed.    Cas. 
No.    11,899,    4    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    532,    1    Off. 
Gaz.  4. 

Fumigating  trees  in  absence  of  the  sun's 
rays  is  not  patentable.  Wall  v.  Leek,  66 
Fed.  552,  13  C.  C.  A.  630  [affirming  61  Fed. 
291]. 

59.  Matter  of  Merrill,  1  MacArthur  (D.  C.) 
301;    Corning  v.    Burden,    15   How.    (U.    S.) 
252,    14   L.   ed.    683;    O'Reilly    v.   Morse,    15 
How.    (U.  S.)    62    14  L.  ed.  601;   Le  Roy  v. 
Tatham,  14  How.   (U.  S.)    156,  14  L.  ed.  367; 
Carver    v.    Hyde,    16    Pet.    (U.    S.)    513,    10 
L.  ed.   1051;   Union  Gas-Engine  Co.  v.  Doak, 
88  Fed.  86;  Standard  Cartridge  Co.  v.  Peters 
Cartridge  Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23  C.  C.  A.  367 
[affirming   69   Fed.   408]  ;    New  Process   Fer- 
mentation Co.  1?.  Maus,  20  Fed.  725;  Ameri- 
can Pin  Co.  v.  Oakville  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
313,   3   Blatchf.    190;    Blanchard   v.   Sprague, 

3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,518,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  734, 
742,    2    Story    164,    3    .Sumn.    535;    Burr    v. 
Cowperthwait,    4     Fed.     Cas.    No.     2,188,    4 
Blatchf.    163;    Case   V.    Brown,    5    Fed.    Cas. 
No.    2,488,    1    Biss.    382,    2    Fish.    Pat.    Cas. 
268  [affirmed  in  2  Wall.  320,  17  L.  ed.  817] ; 
Evarts  v.  Ford,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,574,  6  Fish. 
Pat.    Cas.    587,    5    Off.    Gaz.    58;    Marsh    v. 
Dodge,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,115, 
6    Fish    Pat.    Cas.    562,    5    Off.     Gaz..    398; 
Sickles  r.  Falls  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,834, 

4  Blatchf.     508,     2     Fish.     Pat.     Cas..    202; 
Waterous  v.  Bishop,  20  U.  C.  C.  P.  29. 

A  discovery  that  inhaling  ether  produces 
insensibility  to  pain  is  not  a  patentabla  in- 
vention. Morton  v.  New  York  Eye  Infirmary, 
17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,865,  5  Blatchf.  116,  2 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  320. 

The  measurement  of  time  or  expansion  of 
steam  is  not  patentable  but  only  the  means 
for  utilizing  it.  Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  29 

[II,  A,  4] 


822     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


principle  in  the  abstract,  it  has  been  said,  is  a  fundamental  truth ;  an  original 
cause ;  a  motive ;  these  cannot  be  patented,  because  no  one  can  claim  in  either  of 
them  an  exclusive  right.60  The  patentee  is  always  restricted  to  the  particular 
device  by  which  he  has  undertaken  to  avail  himself  of  the  beneficial  influence  of 
the  principle.61  So  as  to  laws  of  nature  the  processes  used  to  extract,  modify,  and 
concentrate  them  constitute  the  invention.  The  elements  of  the  power  exist ; 
the  invention  is  not  in  discovering  them,  but  in  applying  them  to  useful  objects.62 
And  it  is  for  the  discovery  or  invention  of  some  practicable  method  or  means  of 
producing  a  beneficial  result  or  effect  that  a  patent  is  granted  and  not  the  result 
itself.63 

5.  MEANS  ARE  PATENTABLE.  The  means  devised  for  utilizing  the  principle  or 
accomplishing  the  end  or  result  may  be  patentable,64  whether  it  is  by  chem- 
ical agency  or  combination,  or  by  utilizing  principles  of  natural  philosophy  or 
mechanics.65 

B.  Art  —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  An  art  or  process  is  patentable  as  well  as  machinery.66 
The  term  "  art "  has  been  defined  by  the  United  States  supreme  court  as  follows  : 
"  It  is  an  act,  or  a  series  of  acts,  performed  upon  the  subject-matter  to  be  trans- 
formed and  reduced  to  a  different  state  or  thing.  .  .  .  The  process  requires 
that  certain  things  should  be  done  with  certain  substances,  and  in  a  certain  order."  67 


Fed.   Cas.   No.    17,601,    1   Gall.   478,   1   Robb 
Pat.   Cas.   40. 

60.  Le  Roy  v.  Tatham,   14  How.    (U.  S.) 
156,  14  L.  ed.  367.     There  is  no  authority  to 
grant  a  patent  for  a  "  principle,"  a  "  mode 
of  operation,"  or  an  "  idea,"  or  for  any  other 
abstraction.     Burr  v.  Duryee,  1  Wall.  ( U.  S. ) 
531,   17  L.  ed.  650,  660,   661. 

61.  Steam-Gauge,  etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  R. 
Supplies  Mfg.  Co.,  25  Fed.  491. 

62.  Le  Roy  v.  Tatham,   14  How.    (U.  S.) 
156,   14  L.  ed.  367. 

63.  Corning  v.   Burden,    15  How.    (U.   S.) 
252,  268,  14  L.  ed.  683. 

64.  Le  Roy  v.  Tatham,  22  How.    (U.   S.) 
132,  16  L.  ed.  366;   Carver  v.  Hyde,  16  Pet. 
(U.  S.)   513,  10  L.  ed.  1051;  Cameron  Septic 
Tank  Co.  v.  Saratoga  Springs,   151  Fed.  242 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  159  Fed.  4531]  ; 
Union  Gas-Engine  Co.  v.  Doak,  88  Fed.  86; 
In  re  Henry,    11    Fed.    Cas.    No.   6,371,   Mc- 
Arthur  Pat.  Cas.  467;   Parker  v.  Hulme,   18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,740,   1   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   44; 
Roberts   v.  Dickey,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,899, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  532,  1  Off.  Gaz.  4;   Smith 
v.  Ely,  22   Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,043,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.    339,    5   McLean   76    [reversed  on   other 
grounds    in    15    How.    137,    14   L.   ed.    634] ; 
Tatham  v.  Le  Roy,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,761; 
Wintermute  v.  Redington,   30   Fed.   Cas.  No. 
17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  239.     And  see  infra, 
III,  B,  7;    III,   E,  2. 

Where  result  is  old. —  Means  may  be  pat- 
entable where  the  result  is  old.  Hullet  v. 
Hague,  2  B.  &  Ad.  370,  9  L.  J.  K.  B.  0.  S. 
242,  22  E.  C.  L.  158;  Minter^.  Wells,  1 
C.  M.  &  R.  505,  4  L.  J.  Exch.  2,  5  Tyrw. 
163;  Hill  v.  Evans,  4  De  G.  F.  &  J.  288,  8 
Jur.  N.  S.  525,  31  L.  J.  Ch.  457,  6  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  90,  65  Eng.  Ch.  223,  45  Eng. 
Reprint  1195;  Betts  v.  Menzies,  10  H.  L. 
Cas.  117,  9  Jur.  N.  S.  29,  31  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
233,  7  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  110,  11  Wkly.  Rep. 
1,  11  Eng.  Reprint  970;  Curtis  v.  Pl'att,  11 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  245. 

[II,  A,  4] 


65.  Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Electric  Imp.  Co., 
52    Fed.    965;     Brush    Electric    Co.     r.    Ft. 
Wayne  Electric  Lignt  Co.,  40  Fed.  826;  Burr 
V.   Cowperthwait,   4    Fed.    Cas.   No.    2,188,   4 
Blatchf.  163. 

Means  for  utilizing  law  of  nature  is  patent- 
able.  Hammerschlag  v.  Scamoni,  7  Fed. 
584;  Hall  v.  Wiles,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,954, 
2  Blatchf.  194,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  433. 

Discovery  that  a  substance  is  soluble  and 
useful  for  a  new  purpose  is  patentable. 
Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  t/.  Kalle,  94 
Fed.  163. 

66.  New  Process  Fermentation  Co.  v.  Maus, 
122  U.  S.  413,  7  S.  Ct.  1304,  30  L.  ed.  1103; 
Tilgham   v.   Proctor,    102    U.    S.    707,    26    L. 
ed.   279;    Cochrane   v.  Deener,  94  U.   S.   780, 
24    L.    ed.    139;    Providence    Rubber    Co.    f. 
Goodyear,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  788,  19  L.  ed.  566; 
Corning  v.  Burden,  15  How.   (U.  S.)    252,  14 
L.   ed.   683;    McClurg  v.   Kingsland,    1    How. 
(U.  S.)  202,  11  L.  ed.  102;  French  v.  Rogers, 
9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,103,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  133; 
Roberts  v.  Dickey,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,899, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  532,   1  Off.  Gaz.  4;   Smith 
v.  Downing,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,036,  1  Fish. 
Pat.   Cas.   64;    Wintermute  v.  Redington,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  239; 
Badische   Anilin,   etc.,   Fabrik   v.   Levinstein, 
12  App.  Cas.  710,  57  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  853; 
Cornish   v.    Keene,    3    Bing.    N.    Cas.    570,   2 
Hodges  281,  6  L.  J.  C.  P.  225,  4  Scott  337, 
32  E.  C.  L.  265;    Boulton  v.   Bull,  2  H.  Bl. 
463,  3  Rev.  Rep.  439;   Booth  v.  Kennard,  1 
H.  &  N.  527,  3  Jur.  N.  S.  21,  26  L.  J.  Exch. 
23,    5    Wkly.    Rep.    85;     Hills    t>.    Liverpool 
United  Gas  Light  Co.,  9  Jur.  N.  S.   140,  32 
L.    J.    Ch.    28,    7    L.    T.    Rep.    N.    .S.    537; 
Crane  v.  Price,  12  L.  J.  C.  P.  81,  4  M.  &  G. 
580,    5    Scott   N.   R.    338,   43   E.   C.   L.    301; 
Otto   v.    Linford,    46    L.    T.    Rep.    N.    S.    35; 
Hornblower  v.   Boulton,   8  T.  R.   95,   3   Rev. 
Rep.   439. 

67.  Cochrane  v.  Deener,  94  U.  S.  780,  788, 
24  L.  ed.  139. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     823 


ID  patent  law  the  term  lias  a  different  and  more  restricted  meaning  than  it  has  in 
ordinary  usage.68  It  has  reference  to  the  steps  followed  or  successive  acts  per- 
formed in  producing  some  desired  physical  effect.69  It  must  produce  some  article 
or  substance  or  change  the  physical  condition  of  some  article  or  substance;70  but 


Other  definitions  or  descriptions. — "  [A 
term]  used  as  it  is  in  the  statute  in  the  sense 
of  the  employment  of  means  to  a  desired  end, 
or  the  adaptation  of  powers  in  the  natural 
world  to  the  uses  of  life."  Piper  v.  Brown,  19 
Fed.  Gas.  No.  11,180,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  175, 
Holmes  20. 

"A  mode  of  treatment  of  certain  materials 
to  produce  a  given  result.  It  is  an  act,  or 
a  series  of  acts,  performed  upon  the  subject- 
matter  to  be  transformed  and  reduced  to  a 
different  state  or  thing."  Appleton  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Star  Mfg.  Co.,  GO  Fed.  411,  413,  9 
C.  C.  A.,  42. 

A  result  or  effect  produced  by  chemical 
action,  by  the  operation  or  application  of 
some  element  or  power  of  nature,  or  of  one 
substance  to  another;  in  another  and  more 
vague  sense  it  represents  the  function  of  a 
machine,  or  the  effect  produced  by  it  on  the 
material  subjected  to  the  action  of  the  ma- 
chine. Corning  v.  Burden,  15  How.  (U.  S.) 
252,  267,  14  L.  ed.  683. 

"  The  application  or  operation  of  some 
element  or  power  of  nature,  or  of  one  subject 
to  another."  Boyd  v.  Cherry,  50  Fed.  279, 
282. 

A  "  new  process  "  is  usually  the  result  of 
a  discovery,  as  distinguished  from  "  ma- 
chine "  which  is  an  invention.  Corning  v. 
Burden,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  252,  267,  14  L.  ed. 
683. 

"  Patentable  process." — A  process  combin- 
ing instrumentalities  before  known,  but  not 
employed  together  to  accomplish  a  new  and 
useful  result.  Andrews  v.  Carman,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  371,  13  Blatchf.  307. 

"  Process  "  or  "  methods  "  are  terms  which 
when  used  to  represent  the  means  of  pro- 
ducing a  beneficial  result  are  in  law  synony- 
mous with  "  art,"  provided  the  means  are 
not  effected  by  mechanism  or  mechanical 
combinations.  Piper  v.  Brown,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,180,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  175,  Holmes  20 

68.  Corning  v.  Burden,    15  How.    (U.   S.) 
252,  14  L.  ed.  683. 

69.  In  re  Weston,    17  App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
431;    Risdon    Iron,    etc.,    Works    v.    Medart, 
158  U.  S.  68,  15   S.  Ct.  745,  39  L.  ed.  899; 
Royer  v.  Coupe,  146  U.  S.  524,  13  S.  Ct.  166, 
36   L.    ed.    1073;    International   Tooth-Crown 
Co.  f.  Gaylord,  140  U.  S.  55,  11   S.  Ct.  716, 
35    L.    ed.    347;    Lawther    i\    Hamilton,    124 
U.   S.   1,   8   S.   Ct.   342,  31   L.  ed.   325;   New 
Process  Fermentation  Co.  v.  Maus,  122  U.,  S. 
413,  7  S.  Ct.  1304,  40  L.  ed.   1103;  Downton 
v.  Yeager  Milling  Co.,   108  U.  S.  466,  27  L. 
ed.   789;    Cochrane  a.  Deener,   94  U.   S.   780, 
24   L.   ed.    139;    American   Wood    Paper   Co. 
t?.  Fiber  Disintegrating  Co.,  23  Wall.   (U.  S.) 
566,    23    L.    ed.    31;    Mowry    v.   Whitney,    14 
Wall.    (U.  S.)    620,  20  L.  ed.  860;   American 
Fibre-Chamois    Co.    v.    Buckskin    Fibre    Co., 
72  Fed.  508,  18  C.  C.  A.  662;   Wall  v.  Leek, 


66  Fed.  552,  13  C.  C.  A.  630;  Boyd  v.  Cheriy, 
50  Fed.  279. 

70.  Cochrane  v.  Deener,  94  U.  S.  780,  24 
L.  ed.  139.  And  see  supra,  II,  A,  3. 

A  process,  all  the  steps  of  which  are  old, 
may  be  new  and  patentable  when,  cooperat- 
ing with  each  other,  they  produce  a  result 
that  is  new  and  useful.  G-erman  American 
Filter  Co.  v.  Erdrich,  98  Fed.  300. 

Reversal  of  mode  of  operation  may  be  pat- 
entable. Thus  a  process  for  pasteurizing 
beer  in  bottles  by  moving  the  bottles  through 
heated  water  which  is  stationary  is  not  an- 
ticipated by  a  patent  for  a  process  involving 
the  moving  of  heated  water  around  station- 
ary bottles  containing  the  liquor  to  be  pas- 
teurized. In  re  Wagner,  22  App.  Gas.,  (D.  C.) 
267. 

Process  of  rolling  metal  forgings  is  pat- 
entable. Simonds  Rolling-Mach.  Co.  v.  Ha- 
thorn  Mfg.  Co.,  90  Fed.  201. 

Copperplate  printing  patentable.  Kneass  v. 
Schuylkill  Bank,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,875, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  303,  4  Wash.  9. 

Transmitting  speech  by  electricity  is  pat- 
entable. Dolbear  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co., 
126  U.  S.  1,  8  S.  Ct.  778,  31  L.  ed.  863. 

Artificial  honey  is  patentable.  In  re  Cor- 
bin,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,224,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  521. 

Other  patentable  processes. —  New  Process 
Fermentation  Co.  v.  Maus,  122  U.  S.  413, 
7  S.  Ct.  1304,  30  L.  ed.  1103;  Downton  v. 
Yeager  Milling  Co.,  108  U.  S.  466,  3  S.  Ct. 
10,  27  L.  ed.  789;  Cochrane  v.  Deener,  94 
U.  S.  780,  24  L.  ed.  139;  American  Wood 
Paper  Co.  v.  Fiber  Disintegrating  Co.,  23 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  566,  23  L.  ed.  131;  Mitchell 
v.  Tilghman,  19  Wall.  (U.  S.)  287,  22  L. 
ed.  125;  Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
434,  20  L.  ed.  858;  Providence  Rubber  Co. 
.  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  788,  19  L. 
ed.  566;  Corning  v.  Burden,  15  How.  (U.  S.) 
252,  14  L.  ed.  683;  O'Reilly  v.  Morse,  15 
How.  (U.  S.)  62,  14  L.  ed.  601;  American 
Fibre-Chamois  Co.  v.  Buckskin  Fibre  Co., 
72  Fed.,  508,  18  C.  C.  A.  662;  Travers  v. 
American  Cordage  Co.,  64  Fed.  771;  Uhl- 
man  V.  Arnholdt,  etc.,  Brewing  Co.,  53  Fed. 
485;  Union  Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Water- 
bury,  39  Fed,  389;  Eastern  Paper-Bag  Co. 
V.  Standard  Paper-Bag  Co.,  30  Fed.  63; 
Buchanan  v.  Rowland,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,074, 
5  Blatchf.  151,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  341;  Car- 
negie Steel  Co.  v.  Cambria  Iron  Co.,  99  Off. 
Gaz.  1866;  John  R.  Williams  Co.  v.  Miller, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  97  Off.  Gaz.  2308;  Thomas 
v.  Electric  Porcelain,  etc.,  Co.,  97  Off.  Gaz. 
1838;  Welsbach  Light  Co.  v.  Union  Incan- 
descent Light  Co.,  91  Off.  Gaz.  2574;  West- 
ern Mineral  Wool,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Globe  Mineral 
Wool  Co.,  77  Off.  Gaz.  1127;  Imperial 
Chemical  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stein,  75  Off.  Gaz. 
1551;  Covert  v.  Travers  Bros.  Co.,  75  Off. 

[II,  B,  1] 


824     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


it  is  not  necessary  that  the  thing  produced  shall  be  new,  since  a  new  process  for 
accomplishing  an  old  result  is  patentable.71 

2.  MUST  PRODUCE  PHYSICAL  RESULT.     It  must  be  a  method  of  effecting  a  physical 
result  and  not  a  mere  plan  or  theory  of  conduct.72     The  physical  result,  however, 
need  not  be  a  permanent  condition  of  the  article  or  substance  acted  upon,  but 
may  be  temporary,  as  in  the  case  of  transmitting  speech  by  certain  regulated 
undulations  of  the  electric  current  in  the  telephone.73 

3.  FUNCTION  NOT  PATENTABLE.     The  mere  function  of  a  machine  is  not  a  pat- 
entable process,  although  a  patentable  process  may  be  performed  by  machinery.74 

4.  INDEPENDENT   OF    APPARATUS.     A  patentable  process  is  separate  from  and 
independent  of  any  machine  or  apparatus  used  in  performing  it.75     A  process 
may  be  patentable  irrespective  of  the  particular  form  of  the  instrumentalities 
used.76     It  may  be  said  in  general  that  processes  of  manufacture  which  involve 
chemical  or  other  similar  elemental  action  are  patentable,  although   mechanism 
may  be  necessary  to  the  application  or  carrying  out  of  such  a  process,  while  those 
which  consist  solely  in  the  operation  of  a  machine  are  not.77     "  Most  processes 
which  have  been  held  to  be  patentable  require  the  aid  of  mechanism  in  their 


Gaz.  349;  Tannage  Patent  Co.  v.  Zahn,  74 
Off.  Gaz.  143;  Hoke  v.  Brown,  Dec.  Com. 
Pat.  (1889)  470;  Neilson  v.  Harford,  1  Web. 
Pat.  Cas.  295. 

The  following  processes  have  been  held  not 
to  be  patentable:  An  improvement  in  sew- 
ing machines,  by  which  the  soles  and  uppers 
of  boots  and  shoes  could  be  sewed  together 
without  any  welt  by  a  certain  kind  of  stitches 
(MacKay  v.  Jackman,  12  Fad.  615,  20  Blatchf. 
466)  ;  a  process  of  washing  shavings  in  brew- 
eries (Brainard  v.  Cramme,  12  Fed.  621,  20 
Blatchf.  530)  ;  an  improved  method  of  treat- 
ing seed  by  steam  (Gage  v.  Kellogg,  23  Fed. 
891)  ;  a  process  for  crimping  heel-stiffenings 
of  boots  and  shoes  (Hatch  v.  Moffitt,  15  Fed. 
252). 

71.  Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  102  U.  S.  707,  26 
L.  ed.  279;   Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Good- 
year, 9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  788,  19  L.  ed.  566.    Ar- 
ticle may  be  new  and  process  old.    American 
Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Fiber  Disintegrating  Co., 

23  Wall.   (U.  S.)    560,  23  L.  ed.  31. 

72.  Manhattan  Gen.  Constr.  Co.  v.  Helios- 
Upton  Co.,  135  Fed.  785;  U.  S.  Credit  System 
Co.    v.    American    Credit    Indemnity    Co.,    53 
Fed.  818;  Ex  p.  Dixon,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,927; 
Smith  v.  Downing,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,036,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  64.      And  see  supra,  II,  A,  3 : 
III,  B,  1. 

73.  Dolbear  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  126 
U.  S.  1,  8  S.  Ct.  778,  31  L.  ed.  863. 

74.  In  re  Cunningham,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
29;  In  re  Weston,  17  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   431, 
94  Off.  Gaz.    1786;   Westinghouse  v.  Boyden 
Power-Brake   Co.,   170  U.   S.   537,    18   S.   Ct. 
707,  42  L.  ed.  1136;  Risdon  Iron,  etc.,  Works 
v.  Medart,    158  U.  S.  68,   15  S.  Ct.  745,  39 
L.  ed.  899;  Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  94  U.  S.  288, 

24  L.  ed.  103;  Burr  v.  Duryee,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
531,  17  L.  ed.  650,  600,  661;  Corning  v.  Bur- 
den,   15   How.    (U.   S.)    252,    14   L.   ed.   683; 
Cleveland  Foundry  Co.  v.  Detroit  Vapor  Stove 
Co.,    131    Fed.   740;    National   Hollow   Brako 
Beam    Co.    v.    Interchangeable    Brake    Beam 
Co.,  99  Fed.  758;   American  Strawboard  Co. 
v.  Elkhart  Egg-Case  Co.,  84  Fed.  960;  Gin- 
dorff  v.  Deering,  81  Fed.  952;  Chicopee  Fold- 

[II,  B,  1] 


ing-Box  Co.  v.  Rogers,  32  Fed.  695 ;  Excelsior 
Needle  Co.  v.  Union  Needle  Co.,  32  Fad.  221, 

23  Blatchf.    147;    Gage  v.   Kellogg,   23   Fed. 
891;  Albany  Steam  Trap  Co.  v.  Felthousen, 
20  Fed.  633,  22  Blatchf.  169;  Hatch  -v.  Moffitt, 
15  Fed.  252;  Goss  17.  Cameron,  14  Fed.  570,  11 
Biss.  389;  Brainard  v.  Cramme,  12  Fed.  621, 
20  Blatchf.  530;  MacKay  v.  Jackman,  12  Fed. 
615,  20  Blatchf.  466;  Matthews  v.  Shoneber- 
ger,  4  Fed.  635,  18  Blatchf.  357;   Sickels  v. 
Falls  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,834,  4  Blatchf. 
508,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  202;   Wyeth  v.  Stone, 
30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,107,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  23, 
1   Story  273;   Carnegie  Steel  Co.  v.  Cambria 
Iron  Co.,  99  Off.  Gaz.  1866;  Busch  v.  Jones, 
99   Off.   Gaz.   229;    New  v.   Warren,   22   Off. 
Gaz.  587.    And  see  infra,  II,  B,  7. 

75.  In  re  Weston,    17   App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
431;  Risdon  Iron,  etc.,  Works  v.  Medart,  158 
U.  S.  68,  15  S.  Ct.  745,  39  L.  ed.  899;  Heald 
v.  Rice,  104  U.  S.  737,  26  L.  ed.  910;  James 
v.  Campbell,   104  U.   S.  356,   26  L.  ed.   786; 
Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  102  U.  S.  707,  26  L.  ed. 
279;    Cochrane  v.  Deener,  94  U.   S.   780,  24 
L.  ed.  139;  Providence  Rubber  Co.  u.  Good- 

•year,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  788,  19  L.  ed.  566; 
Corning  v.  Burden,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  252,  14 
L.  ed.  683;  Gindorff  v.  Deering,  81  Fed.  952; 
Wells  Glass  Co.  v.  Henderson,  67  Fed.  930, 
15  C.  C.  A.  84;  Burr  V.  Cowperthwait,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,188,  4  Blatchf.  163;  Piper  v. 
Brown,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,180,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  175,  Holmes  20  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200]  ;  In  re 
Creveling,  117  Off.  Gaz.  1167;  U.  S.  Repair, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Assyrian  Asphalt  Co.,  98  Off. 
Gaz.  582;  Vermont  Farm  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Gibson,  56  Off.  Gaz.  1566. 

76.  Cochrane  v.  Deener,  94  U.  S.  780,  787, 

24  L.  ed.  139,  in  which  it  was  said:     "  If  one 
of  the  steps  of  a  process  be  that  a  certain 
substance  is  to  be  reduced  to  a  powder,   it 
may    not    be    at    all    material    what    instru- 
ment or  machinery  is  used  to  effect  that  ob- 
ject, whether  a  hammer,  a  pestle  and  mortar, 
or  a  mill." 

77.  Risdon  Iron,  etc.,  Works  v.  Medart,  158 
U.    S.    68,    15    S.    Ct.    745,    39    L.    ed.    899; 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     825 


practical  application,  but  where  such  mechanism  is  subsidiary  to  the  chemical 
action,  the  fact  that  the  patentee  may  be  entitled  to  a  patent  upon  his  mechanism 
does  not  impair  his  right  to  a  patent  for  the  process ;  since  he  would  lose  the 
benefit  of  his  real  discovery,  which  might  be  applied  in  a  dozen  different  ways, 
if  he  were  not  entitled  to  such  patent.'' 78 

5.  CHEMICAL  OR  ELEMENTAL  ACTION.     Arts  or  processes  within  the  meaning  of  the 
term  in  patent  law  have  been  defined  as  those  in  which  chemical  or  elemental  action 
is  called  into  play  and  such  processes  have  always  been  regarded  as  patentable.79 

6.  MECHANICAL  PROCESSES.     It  would  seem,  however,  that  mechanical  processes 
involving  simple 'manipulation  may  be  patentable,  even  where  there  is  no  chemical 
or  elemental  action.80     The  mere  fact  that  the  use  of  machinery  may  be  necessary 
in  carrying  out  the  process  does  not  render  it  unpatentable.81 

7.  KNOWLEDGE  OF  PRINCPLES  INVOLVED  UNNECESSARY.     An  art  may  be  patentable, 
although  the  inventor  himself  does  not  know  the  philosophical  or  abstract  principles 
involved  in  the  practice  of  the  art.82     He  must,  however,  know  and  describe  the 
steps  by  which  the  result  is  accomplished  so  that  those  skilled  in  the  art  may 
practice  the  invention.83 

C.  Machines.     A  machine  is  a  combination  of  mechanical  elements  adapted 
to  perform  a  mechanical  function.84     It  includes  movable  parts  and  differs  from 
an  article  or  implement  in  that  it  has  a  rule  of  action  of  its  own.     It  differs  from 
a  process,  in  that  a  new  process  is  usually  the  result  of  discovery,  and  a  machine 
of  invention.85 

D.  Manufacture.     An  article  of  manufacture  is  any  article  or  implement 
produced  by  human  agency  and  adapted  to  perform  a  mechanical  function  but 
having  no  rule  of  action  of  its  own.86 


78.  Risdon  Iron,  etc.,  Works  v.  Medart,  158 
U.  S.  68,  72,  15  S.  Ct.  745,  39  L.  ed.  899. 

79.  In  re  Western,    17   App.   Gas.    (D.   C.) 
431;  Risdon  Iron,  etc.,  Works  v.  Medart,  158 
U.  S.  68,  15  S.  Ct.  745,  39  L.  ed.  899;  New 
Process     Fermentation     Co.     v.     Maus,     122 
U.   S.   413,   7   S.   Ct.    1304,   30   L.   ed.    1103; 
Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  102  U.  S.  707,  26  L.  ed. 
279;    Cochrane  v.  Deener,  94   U.   S.   780,   24 
L.    ed.    139;    Mowry    v.    Whitney,    14    Wall. 
(U.  S.)    620,  20  L.  ed.  860;  American  Fibre- 
Chamois  Co.   v.  Buckskin-Fibre  Co.,  72  Fed. 
508,    18   C.    C.   A.   662;    Piper   v.   Brown,    19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,180,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   175, 
Holmes  20  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  91 
U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200]. 

Process  and  apparatus. — A  process  and  an 
apparatus,  while  presumptively  independent 
inventions  when  considered  in  the  light  of 
U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4886  [amended  by 
U.  S.  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3382),  providing 
that  inventions  or  discoveries  may  be  either 
arts,  machines,  or  composition  of  matter, 
nevertheless  may  be  so  connected  in  their  de- 
sign and  operation  as  to  constitute  unitary 
invention.  In  re  Frasch,  27  App.  Cas.  ( D.  C. ) 
25. 

80.  Carnegie  Steel  Co.  v.  Cambria  Iron  Co., 
185  U.  S.  403,  22  S.  Ct.  698,  46  L.  ed.  968; 
Melvin   v.    Potter,    91    Fed.    151;    Travers   V. 
American  Cordage  Co.,   64  Fed.   771;   Union 
Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Waterbury,  39  Fed. 
389;    Eastern    Paper-Bag    Co.    v.    Standard 
Paper-Bag   Co.,   30   Fed.    63;    Detroit   Lubri- 
cator   Mfg.    Co.    v.    Renchard.    9    Fed.    293; 
Wilton    v.    Railroad    Co.,    30    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,856.     But  see  Risdon  Iron,  etc.,  Works  v. 
Medart,  158  U.  S.  68,  15  S.  Ct.  745,  39  L.  ed. 


899 ;  Stokes  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Heller,  96  Fed. 
104;  American  Strawboard  Co.  v.  Elkhart 
Egg-Case  Co.,  84  Fed.  960;  Wells  Glass 
Co.  v.  Henderson,  67  Fed.  930,  15  C.  C.  A. 
84. 

81.  In  re  Weston,   17  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
431;  Carnegie  Steel  Co.  v.  Cambria  Iron  Co., 
185  U.  S.  403,  22  S.  Ct.  698,  46  L.  ed.  968. 
See  supra,  II,  B,  4. 

82.  Piper    v.    Brown,     19    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
11,180,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  175,  Holmes  20  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  91  U.  S.  37,  23 
L.  ed.  200]  ;  Wilton  v.  Railroad  Co.,  30  Fed. 
Cas.   No.    17,856.     And   see   infra,   V,   B,    2. 

83.  See  infra,  V,  B,  2,  a. 

84.  Corning  v.  Burden,    15   How.    (U.   S.) 
252,  14  L.  ed.  683.    A  word  which  is  said  to 
include  every  mechanical  device  or  combina- 
tion of  mechanical  powers  and  devices  to  per- 
form  some   function  and   produce   a   certain 
effect  or  result.     Corning  v.  Burden,  15  How. 
(U.   S.)    252,   14  L.  ed.  683;   Appleton  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Star  Mfg.  Co.,  60  Fed.  411,  9  C.  C.  A. 
42;  Piper  v.  Brown,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,180, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  175,  Holmes  20. 

New  combinations  as  well  as  new  organiza- 
tions of  mechanism  are  included  in  the  term. 
Wintermute  i?.  Redington,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  239. 

85.  Corning  v.  Burden,   15  How.    (U.  S.) 
252,  14  L.  ed.  683. 

86.  Wood  v.  Underbill,  5  How.    (U.  S.)    1, 
12    L.    ed.    23;    Hotchkiss   v.    Greenwood,    12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,718,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  730,  4 
McLean  456.     As  used  in  the  patent  law,  it 
is  a  word  of  very  comprehensive  meaning,  and 
embraces  whatever  is  made  by  the  art  or  in- 
dustry of  man,  not  being  a  machine,  a  com- 

pi,  D] 


826     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


E.  Composition  of  Matter.     A  composition  of  matter  is  a  mechanical  mix- 
ture or  chemical  combination  of  two  or  more  substances,87  and  may  be  patentable.88 
The  test  of  patentability  is  the  same  as  in  machines.89 

F.  Improvement — 1.  IN  GENERAL.     An  improvement  is  an  addition  to,  or 
change  in,  a  known  art,  machine,  manufacture,  or  composition  of  matter  which 
produces  a  useful  result,90  and  is  patentable 91  if  it  amounts  to  invention.92     The 
improvement  may  be  upon  the  patentee's  own  invention.93 

2.  SUPERIORITY  UNNECESSARY.  In  the  sense  of  the  patent  law  it  is  not  necessary 
that  the  improved  article  be  superior  to  the  original  in  all  respects.94  It  is  suf- 
ficient that  the  thing  including  the  improvement  is  useful  and  possesses  some 
advantage  over  the  original  for  some  purposes.95  The  advantage  may  reside  in 


position  of  matter,  or  a  design.  Johnson  v. 
Johnston,  60  Fed.  618. 

Any  tool  or  implement  used  by  hand  is 
patentable.  Coupe  v.  Weatherhead,  16  Fed. 
673. 

A  book  having  a  novel  construction  is  a 
patentable  article,  and  the  relative  arrange- 
ment of  printed  matter  and  blank  spaces 
may  be  considered  an  element  of  structure. 
Thomson  v.  Citizens'  Nat.  Bank,  53  Fed.  250, 
3  C.  C.  A.  518;  Munson  v.  New  York,  3  Fed. 
338,  5  Ban.  &  A.  486,  18  Blatchf.  237  [.re- 
versed in  124  U.  S.  601,  8  S.  Ct.  622,  31  L.  ed. 
586];  Hawes  v.  Antisdel,  11  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
6,234,  2  Ban.  &  A.  10,  8  Off.  Gaz.  685; 
Hawes  v.  Cook,  11  Fed.  Gas.  No.  6,236,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  493;  Hawes  v.  Washburne,  11  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  6,242,  5  Off.  Gaz.  491. 

A  teaching  chart  with  skitted  leaves  is 
patentable.  In  re  Snyder,  10  App.  Gas. 
(D.  C.)  140. 

87.  Holliday  v.  Schulze-Berge,  78  Fed.  493 ; 
Rogers  v.  Ennis,  20  Fed.  Gas.  No.  12,010, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  366,  15  Blatchf.  47,  14  Off.  Gaz. 
601 ;  Tarr  v.  Folsom,  23  Fed.  Gas.  No.  13,756, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  24,  Holmes  312,  5  Off.  Gaz.  92. 

New  proportions  of  old  ingredients  patent- 
able.— Francis  v.  Mellor,  9  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
5,039,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  153,  1  Off.  Gaz.  48, 
8  Phila.  (Pa.)  157;  Stephens  v.  Felt,  22  Fed. 
Gas.  No.  13,368a;  Woodward  v.  Morrison,  30 
Fed.  Gas.  No.  18,008,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  357, 
Holmes  124,  2  Off.  Gaz.  120. 

New  way  or  new  form. — A  composition  is 
not  patentable  because  made  in  a  new  way 
(In  re  Maule,  16  Fed.  Gas.  No.  9,308,  McAr- 
thur  Pat.  Cas.  271)  ;  or  in  a  new  form  (Rum- 
ford  Chemical  Works  v.  New  York  Baking 
Powder  Co.,  125  Fed.  231). 

Although  process  is  old  the  product  may  be 
new.  Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  788,  19  L.  ed.  566;  Badische 
Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  r.  Kalle,  94  Fed.  163. 

A  substance  in  nature  is  not  patentable  be- 
cause new  means  are  devised  for  obtaining 
it  (American  Wood-Paper  Co.  v.  Fibre  Disin- 
tegrating Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  320,  6  Blatchf. 
27,  3  Fish.  Pat,  Cas.  362  [affirmed  in  23  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  566,  23  L.  ed.  31];  when  separated 
from  other  materials  with  which  it  is  found 
combined  (American  Wood-Paper  Co.  v.  Fibre 
Disintegrating  Co.,  supra) . 

In  England  a  composition  first  made  com- 
mercially is  patentable,  although  it  was 
known  as  a  chemical  curiosity.  Frearson  v. 
Loe,  9  Ch.  D.  48,  27  Wkly.  Rep.  183;  Lewis 

[II,  E] 


v.  Davis,  3  C.  &  P.  502,  14  E.  C.  L.  685; 
Electric  Tel.  Co.  v.  Brett,  10  C.  B.  838,  15 
Jur.  579,  20  L.  J.  C.  P.  123,  70  E.  C.  L.  838 ; 
Nickels  v.  Ross,  8  C.  B.  679,  65  E.  C.  L.  679; 
Young  v.  Fernie,  4  Giffard  577,  10  Jur.  N.  S. 
926,  10  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  861,  12  Wkly.  Rep. 
901,  66  Eng.  Reprint  836;  Crane  v.  Price,  12 
L.  J.  C.  P.  81,  4  M.  &  G.  580,  5  Scott  N.  R. 
338,  43  E.  C.  L.  301 ;  Hornblower  v.  Boulton, 
8  T.  R.  95,  3  Rev.  Rep.  439. 

88.  Cochrane     v.     Badische     Anilin,     etc., 
Fabrik,  111  U.  S.  293,  4  S.  Ct.  455,  28  L.  ed. 
433;    Smith    v.    Goodyear    Dantal    Vulcanite 
Co.,  93  U.  S.  486,  23 *L.  ed.  952. 

89.  Arlington  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Celluloid  Co.,  97 
Fed.  91,  38  C.  C.  A.  60;  Antisdel  v.  Chicago 
Hotel  Cabinet  Co.,  89  Fed.  308,  32  C.  C.  A. 
216. 

Lack  of  identity  is  shown  by  results. 
Matheson  v.  Campbell,  77  Fed.  280. 

90.  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.    (U.  S.) 
516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Thomson-Houston  Electric 
Co.  v.  Ohio  Brass  Co.,  130  Fed.  542;  Thom- 
son-Houston Electric  Co.  v.  Bullock  Electric 
Co.,    101    Fed.    587;    Fruit-Cleaning    Co.    v. 
Fresno    Home-Packing    Co.,    94    Fed.     845; 
Wales  v.  Waterbury  Mfg.  Co.,  59  Fed.  285; 
Bray  v.   Hartshorn,   4   Fed.   Cas.   No.    1,820, 
1  Cliff.  538 ;  Page  v.  Ferry,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,662,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  298. 

A  change  in  an  old  machine  may  consist 
alone  of  a  new  and  useful  combination  of 
the  several  parts  of  which  it  is  composed,  or 
it  may  consist  of  a  material  alteration  or 
modification  of  one  or  more  of  the  several 
devices  which  enter  into  its  construction,  or 
it  may  consist  in  adding  new  devices.  Bray 
v.  Hartshorn,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,820,  1  Cliff. 
538. 

91.  Phillips  v.  Page,  24  How.   (U.  S.)   164, 
16  L.  ed.  639;  Wales  v.  Waterbury  Mfg.  Co., 
59  Fed.  285;  Coupe  v.  Weatherhead,  16  Fed. 
673;    Bray   v.    Hartshorn,    4    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,820,  1  Cliff.  538;  Losh  v.  Hague,  Web.  Pat. 
Cas.  200. 

92.  Pelzer   v.  Dale   Co.,    106   Fed.   989,   46 
C.  C.  A.  83. 

93.  O'Reilly   v.   Morse,    15    How.    (U.    S.) 
62,  14  L.  ed.  601;  Grimes  v.  Allen,  102  Fed. 
606,  42  C.  C.  A.  559. 

94.  Blandy    v.    Griffith,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,529,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  609.     And  see  infra, 
III,  D. 

95.  Detroit  Lubricator  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rench- 
ard,  9  Fed.  203;  Aiken  v.  Dolan,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  110,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  197. 


PA  TENTS 


[30  Cye.]     827 


the  ease  or  cheapness  of  manufacture  or  it  may  reside  in  the  functions  performed 
by  it.96 

G.  Designs —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  A  patentable  design  may  consist  of  a  new  and 
ornamental  shape  given  to  an  article  of  manufacture  or  of  an  ornamentation  to  be 
placed  upon  an  article  of  old  shape.97  The  design  law  was  intended  to  encourage 
the  decorative  arts,  and  therefore  deals  with  the  appearance  rather  than  the 
structure,  uses,  or  functions  of  the  article.98  The  design  must  be  novel  and  must 
have  called  for  an  exercise  of  the  inventive  faculties  as  distinguished  from  ordi- 
nary skill.99  The  patentability  of  a  design  does  not  depend  on  its  aesthetic  value. 


96.  Jones  v.  Wetherill,   13   Fed.   Gas.  No. 
7,508,  McArthur  Pat.  Gas.  409. 

97.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4929    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3398]. 

Combination  of  old  elements  producing  new 
appearance  is  patentable.  Matthews,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  American  Lamp,  etc.,  Co.,  103 
Fed.  634;  Untermeyer  r.  Freund,  58  Fed. 
205,  7  C.  C.  A.  183. 

For  designs  held  patentable  see  Caldwell  v. 
Powell,  73  Fed.  488,  19  C.  C.  A.  592  [revers- 
ing 71  Fed.  970];  Stewart  v.  Smith,  58  Fed. 
580,  7  C.  C.  A.  380;  Smith  v.  Stewart,  55 
Fed.  481;  New  York  Belting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  New 
Jersey  Car-Spring,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Fed.  556 
Ire  versed  on  other  grounds  in  53  Fed.  810,  4 
C.  C.  A.  21]  ;  Anderson  v.  Saint,  46  Fed.  760; 
Eclipse  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Adkins,  44  Fed.  280 ;  Fos- 
ter v.  Crossin,  44  Fed.  62 ;  Simpson  v.  Davis, 
12  Fed.  144,  20  Blatchf.  413;  Miller  v.  Smith, 
15  Fed.  359. 

For  unpatentable  subject-matter  see  Nied- 
ringhaus  v.  Commissioner  of  Patents,  2  Mac- 
Arthur  (D.  C.)  149;  Howe  v.  Blodgett,  etc., 
Co.,  112  Fed.  61,  50  C.  C.  A.  120;  Eclipse 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Holland,  62  Fed.  465  [affirmed 
in  79  Fed.  993,  25  C.  C.  A.  676];  Foster  v. 
Crossin,  44  Fed.  62;  Post  v.  T.  C.  Richards 
Hardware  Co.,  26  Fed.  618  [affirmed  in  131 
U.  S.  444,  9  S.  Ct.  802,  33  L.  ed.  218]  ;  Adams, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Wire-Goods  Co.,  1 
Fed.  Gas.  No.  72,  3  Ban.  &  A.  77. 

Movable  parts. —  Design  may  include  mov- 
able parts.  Chandler  Adjustable  Chair,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Hey  wood  Bros.,  etc.,  Co.,  91  Fed.  163. 

Uniting  old  forms  and  parts. — Whatever  in- 
genuity is  displayed  in  producing  a  new  de- 
sign which  imparts  to  the  eye  a  pleasing  im- 
pression, even  though  it  be  the  result  of 
uniting  old  forms  and  parts,  such  production 
is  patentable.  General  Gaslight  Co.  v.  Match- 
less Mfg.  Co.,  129  Fed.  137. 

In  England  designs  are  copyrighted  and  not 
patented.  St.  5  &  6  Viet.  c.  100;  Holds- 
worth  v.  McCrea,  L.  R.  2  H.  L.  380,  36  L.  J. 
Q.  B.  297,  14  Wkly.  Rep.  226;  Windover  v. 
Smith,  32  Beav.  200,  9  Jur.  N.  S.  397,  32 
L.  J.  Ch.  561,  7  L..T.  Rep.  N.  S.  776,  1  New 
Rep.  349,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  323,  55  Eng.  Reprint 
78;  Dalglish  v.  Jarvie,  2  Hall  &  T.  437,  47 
Eng.  Reprint  1754,  14  Jur.  945,  20  L.  J.  Ch. 
475,  2  Macn.  &  G.  231,  48  Eng.  Ch.  178,  42  . 
Eng.  Reprint  89;  Pierce  v.  Worth,  18  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  710. 

98.  In  re  Tournier,  17  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.) 
481;  Miller  -v.  Young,  33  111.  354;  Gorham 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  White,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  511,  20 
L.  ed.  731;  West  Disinfecting  Co.  v.  Frank, 


146  Fed.  388  [affirmed  in  149  Fed.  423,  79 
C.  C.  A.  359];  Bradley  v.  Eccles,  126  Fed. 
945,  61  C.  C.  A.  669;  Eaton  v.  Lewis,  115 
Fed.  635  [affirmed  in  127  Fed.  1018,  61 
C.  C.  A.  562] ;  Bevin  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Starr 
Bros.  Bell  Co.,  114  Fed.  362;  Rowe  v.  Blodg- 
ett, etc.,  Co.,  103  Fed.  873  [affirmed  in  112 
Fed.  61,  50  C.  C.  A.  120]  ;  Pelouze  Scale,  etc., 
Co.  v.  American  Cutlery  Co.,  102  Fed.  916,  43 
C.  C.  A.  52;  Braddock  Glass  Co.  v.  Macbeth, 
64  Fed.  118,  12  C.  C.  A.  70;  Redway  v.  Ohio 
Stove  Co.,  38  Fed.  582 ;  Untermeyer  v.  Freund, 

37  Fed.  342;  Wood  v.  Dolby,  7  Fed.  475,  19 
Blatchf.    214;    Northrup  v.  Adams,    18    Fed. 
Cas.   No.    10,328,   2   Ban.   &  A.   567,    12   Off. 
Gaz.    430;    Perry   v.    Starrett,    19    Fed.    Cas. 
No.    11,012,   3  Ban.  &  A.  485,    14  Off.   Gaz. 
599. 

99.  In  re  Freeman,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
226 ;  Smith  v.  Whitman  Saddle  Co.,  148  U.  S. 
674,  13  S.  Ct.  768,  37  L.  ed.  606;  General 
Gaslight  Co.  v.  Matchless  Mfg.  Co.,  129  Fed. 
137 ;  Bevin  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Starr  Bros.  Bell 
Co.,  114  Fed.  362;  Cary  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Neal,  98 
Fed.  617,  39  C.  C.  A.  189;  Soehner  v.  Favor- 
ite Stove,  etc.,  Co.,  84  Fed.  182,  28  C.  C.  A. 
317;  Hammond  v.  Stockton  Combined  Har- 
vester, etc.,  Works,  70  Fed.  716,  17  C.  C.  A. 
356;  Krick  v.  Jansen,  61  Fed.  847,  10  C.  C.  A. 
114;  Paine  v.  Snowden,  46  Fed.  189;  Pratt  v. 
Rosenfeld,  3  Fed.  335,  18  Blatchf.  234;  Col- 
lender  v.  Griffith,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,000,  11 
Blatchf.  212,  3  Off.  Gaz.  689;  Northrup  v. 
Adams,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,328,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
567,  12  Off.  Gaz.  430. 

As  much  invention  is  required  as  in  me- 
chanical patent.—  Design  patents  stand  on  as 
high  a  plane  as  utility  patents  and  require 
as  high  a  degree  of  exercise  of  the  inventive 
or  original  faculty.  Perry  v.  Hoskins,  111 
Fed.  1002;  Myers  v.  Sternheim,  97  Fed.  625, 

38  C.  C.  A.  345 ;  Western  Electric  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Odell,  18  Fed.  321. 

Double  use  of  the  same  thing  for  different 
purposes  is  not  invention.  Smith  v.  Whitman 
Saddle  Co.,  148  U.  S.  674,  13  S.  Ct.  768,  37 
L.  ed.  606;  Untermeyer  v.  Freund,  58  Fed. 
205,  7  C.  C.  A.  183;  Cahoone  Barnet  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Rubber,  etc.,  Harness  Co.,  45  Fed. 
582;  New  York  Belting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  New  Jer- 
sey Car-Spring,  etc.,  Co.,  30  Fed.  785. 

Identity  of  designs. —  Designs  are  the  same 
when  an  ordinary  observer  giving  ordinary 
attention  would  mistake  one  for  the  other. 
Smith  v.  Whitman  Saddle  Co.,  148  U.  S.  674, 
13  S.  Ct.  768,  37  L.  ed.  606 ;  Gorham  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  White,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  511,  20  L.  ed.  731 ; 
Jennings  v.  Kibbe,  10  Fed.  669,  20  Blatchf. 

[II,  G,  1] 


828     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


The  design  act,  as  construed  by  the  courts,  intends  that  the  patentability  of  a 
design  shall  be  determined  by  its  appeal  to  the  eyes  of  the  ordinary  man,  and  not 
to  the  eyes  of  a  jury  of  artists.1  The  same  rules  as  to  construction  and  validity 
apply  as  in  the  case  of  mechanical  inventions.2 

2.  TERM.     Design  patents  are  granted  for  three  years  and  six  months,  for  seven 
years,  or  for  fourteen  years,  as  the  applicant  may  in  his  application  elect.3 

III.  PATENTABILITY.4 

A.  In  General.     The  subject-matter  of  patents  must  not  only  come  within 
the  statutory  classes,  but  must  be  new5  and  useful.6     It  must  further  be  of  such 
a  character  as  to  have  called  for  an  exercise  of  the  inventive  or  creative  faculties 
of  the  mind,  as  distinguished  from  the  mere  exercise  of  the  knowledge  and  judg- 
ment expected  of  those  skilled  in  the  particular  art.7     It  must  not  have  been 
abandoned  by  the  inventor,8  nor  have  become  public  property  by  forfeiture  under 
statutory  provisions.9 

B.  Novelty10 — 1.  IN  GENERAL.     The  subject-matter  of  patents  must  be  new.11 


353.  The  test  of  identity  is  the  sameness  of 
appearance  to  the  eye  of  the  ordinary  ob- 
server. Smith  v.  Whitman  Saddle  Co.,  146 
U.  S.  674,  13  S.  Ct.  763,  37  L.  ^d.  606. 

Utility  is  to  be  considered  in  determining 
invention.  Smith  v.  Whitman  Saddle  Co., 
148  U.  S.  674,  13  S.  Ct.  768,  37  L.  ed.  606; 
Lehnbeuter  v.  Holthaus,  105  U.  S.  94,  26 
L.  ed.  939. 

Where  the  peculiarities  of  an  applicant's 
design  do  not  rise  to  the  dignity  of  invention, 
the  design  is  not  patentable,  although  the  pe- 
culiarities are  such  as  to  prevent  the  design 
from  being  regarded  in  the  trade  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  a  design  already  patented.  In  re 
Schraubstadter,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  331. 

1.  In    re    Schraubstadter,    26    App.     Cas. 
(D.  C.)   331.     Compare  Williams  Calk  Co.  v. 
Kemmerer,    145    Fed.   928,    76   C.   C.   A.   466 
[affirming  136  Fed.  210]. 

2.  Miller  v.  Smith,  5  Fed.  359;  U.  S.  Rev. 
St.    (1878)    §  4933   [U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901) 
p.  3399]. 

3.  U.   S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §    4931    [U.    S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)  p.  3399]. 

4.  Conclusiveness  and  effect  of  decision  in 
patent  office  as  to  patentability  of  invention 
see  infra,  V,  C,  15. 

5.  See  infra,  III,  B,  1. 

6.  See  infra,  III,  D,  1. 

7.  See  infra,  III,  E,  1. 

8.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4886.     And  see 
supra,  II,  G. 

9.  Sewall  v.  Jones,  91  U.  S.  171,  23  L.  ed. 
275;    Brooks    v.    Jenkins,    4    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,953,    Fish.    Pat.    Rep.    41,    3    McLean    432; 
Dawson  v.  Follen,  7    Fed.   Cas.  No.   3,670,   1 
Robb   Pat.    Cas.   9,   2    Wash.    311.     And   see 
infra,    II,    F. 

10.  Application  to  new  use  as  involving  in- 
vention see  infra,  III,  E,  13. 

Conclusiveness  and  effect  of  decisions  of 
patent  office  see  infra,  V,  C,  15. 

11.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4886;   In  re 
Moeser,  27  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   307;  Richards 
0.  Chase  Elevator  Co.,   159  U.  S.  477,   16  S. 
Ct.    53,    40    L.    ed.    225;    Dunbar   v.   Meyers, 
94  F.  S.   187,  24  L.  ed.  34;   Smyth  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Sheridan,   149  Fed.  208,  79  C.  C.  A.  166; 

[II,  G,  1] 


Sellers  v.  Cofrode,  35  Fed.  131;  Celluloid 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Tower,  26  Fed.  451  [affirmed  in 
136  U.  S.  633,  10  S.  Ct.  1066,  34  L.  ed.  551]  ; 
Gardner  v.  Herz,  12  Fed.  491,  20  Blatchf. 
538  [affirmed  in  118  U.  S.  180,  6  S.  Ct.  1027, 
30  L.  ed.  158];  Bean  v.  Smallwood,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,173,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  133,  2 
Story  408;  Brooks  v.  Jenkins,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,953,  Fish.  Pat.«  Rep.  41,  3  McLean 
432;  Conover  v.  Roach,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,125,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  12;  Evans  v.  Eaton, 
8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559,  Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  68;  In  re  Henry,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,371,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  467;  Jones  v. 
Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,495,  3  Cliff.  563, 
6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3  Off.  Gaz.  630  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  91  U.  S.  171,  23 
L.  ed.  275] ;  McCormick  v.  Seymour,  15  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  8,726,  2  Blatchf.  240;  Parker  V. 
Stiles,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,749,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  319,  5  McLean  44;  Roberts  v.  Ward, 
20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,918,  4  McLean  565,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  746;  Seligman  v.  Day,  21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,643,  2  Ban.  &  A.  407,  14 
Blatchf.  72;  Stanley  r.  Whipple,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,286,  2  McLean  35,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  1;  Thompson  v.  Haight,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,957;  Winans  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,803,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  213  [affirmed  in  21  How.  88,  16  L.  ed. 
68]  ;  Ex  p.  Manceaux,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  272.  18 
Wkly.  Rep.  1184;  Stocker  v.  Warn,  1  C.  B. 
148,  9  Jur.  136,  50  E.  C.  L.  148;  Ralston  v. 
Smith,  20  C.  B.  N.  S.  28,  11  H.  L.  Cas.  223, 
35  L.  J.  C.  P.  49,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  1, 
11  Eng.  Reprint  1318;  Harwood  v.  Great 
Northern  R.  Co., '11  H.  L.  Cas.  654,  35  L.  J. 
Q.  B.  27,  12  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  771,  14  Wkly. 
Rep.  1,  11  Eng.  Reprint  1488;  Hill  v. 
Thompson,  Holt  N.  P.  636,  3  E.  C.  L.  249, 
2  Meriv.  622,  17  Rev.  Rep.  156,  36  Eng.  Re- 
print 239,  2  Moore  C.  P.  424,  8  Taunt.  375, 
20  Rev.  Rep.  488,  4  E.  C.  L.  190;  White  v. 
Toms,  37  L.  J.  Ch.  204,  17  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
348.  And  see  Butch  v.  Boyer,  8  Phila.  (Pa.) 
57.  ••;, 

Novelty  either  in  result  or  mode  of  opera- 
tion is  necessary.  Batten  v.  Clayton,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,105. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     829 


This  is  equally  the  case  whether  the  invention  claimed  consists  of  an  entire  machine 
or  improvement  of  a  machine,  or  a  combinatioiiyof  several  mechanical  powers.12 
Patent  rights  of  this  kind  are  given  only  to  inventors  or  discoverers  of  some 
new  and  useful  art,  machine,  manufacture,  or  composition  of  matter,  or  some 
new  and  useful  improvement  thereof.13  And  to  be  new  the  thing  must  not  have 
been  known  to  any  one  before.14 

2.  PRIOR  KNOWLEDGE  IN  THIS  COUNTRY.  It  must  be  new  not  merely  to  the 
patentee  but  to  all  people  in  the  United  States.15 

,3.  EXTENT  OF  PRIOR  KNOWLEDGE.  To  negative  novelty  the  prior  knowledge 
must  have  been  of  the  complete  operative  invention  and  must  not  have  been  mere 
theory  or  speculation  as  to  what  might  be  done.16  Prior  knowledge  by  a  single 
person,  however,  is  sufficient.17 

4.  DATE  OF  KNOWLEDGE.     The  question  of  novelty  is  to  be  determined  by  the 
knowledge  possessed  by  people  in  the  United  States  at  the  time  that  the  patentee 
makes  the  invention,18  and  not  at  the  time  that  he  secures  his  patent  or  files  his 
application.19 

5.  PRIOR  KNOWLEDGE  OR  USE  ABROAD.     By  the  express  provision  of  the  federal 


Making  and  selling  a  part  of  an  old  and 
known  manufacture  as  a  new  article  of  trade 
is  not  patentable.  Seligman  v.  Day,  21  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,643,  2  Ban.  &  A.  467,  14  Blatchf. 
72. 

An  article  is  not  new  merely  because  made 
by  a  new  process.  Cochrane  v.  Badische 
Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik,  111  U.  S.  293,  4  S.  Ct. 
455,  28  L.  ed.  433;  American  Wood  Paper 
Co.  r.  Fiber  Disintegrating  Co.,  23  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  566,  23  L.  ed.  31. 

Evidence  of  novelty. —  In  all  cases  the  great 
commercial  success  of  a  patented  device,  and 
the  fact  that  it  supplants  or  supersedes  other 
devices  of  the  same  kind  used  for  the  same 
purpose,  are  evidence  of  patentable  inven- 
tion, novelty,  and  utility  of  no  mean  order 
or  low  degree,  and  such  facts  are  in  many  , 
cases  persuasive  evidence  of  a  most  valu- 
able conception.  Heywood  Bros.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Syracuse  Rapid  Transit  R.  Co.,  152  Fed.  453. 
Although  the  fact  that  a  device  has  sup- 
planted prior  devices  in  the  trade  may  turn 
the  scale  in  favor  of  the  existence  of  in- 
vention, where  that  question  is  in  doubt, 
yet  such  fact  has  no  weight  where  the  want 
of  patentable  novelty  is  already  reasonably 
clear.  Utility  is  not  novelty.  In  re  Garrett, 
27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  19. 

12.  Brooks    v.    Jenkins,    4    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,953,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  41,  3  McLean  4^2. 

13.  Dunbar   v.  Meyers,   94   U.   S.    187,   24 
L.  ed.   34. 

14.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4886.     And 
see   infra,   III,    D. 

15.  Stitt  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  22  Fed.  649; 
Miller  v.  Foree,  9   Fed.  603   [affirmed  in  116 
U.  S.  22,  6  S.  Ct.  204,  29  L.  ed.  552] ;  Larabee 
V.   Cortlan,   14   Fed.   Cas.   No.   8,084,   3   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  5,  Taney  180.     And  see  infra,  III, 
C,    1,   d. 

16.  Gordon  v.   Warder,   150  U.    S.  47,   14 
S.    Ct.    32,    37   L.   ed.    992;    Ransom    v.   New 
York,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,573,  1   Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.   252;    Sickles   v.   Borden,    22    Fed.    Cas. 
No.   12,832,  3  Blatchf.   535.     And  see  infra, 
III,  C,  1,  b. 

Suggestion  of  result  not  means  will  not  an- 


ticipate. Graham  v.  Gammon,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,668,  3  Ban.  &  A.  7,  7  Biss.  490. 

Mere  suggestion  not  sufficient.  Diamond 
Match  Co.  v.  Schenck,  71  Fed.  521  [affirmed 
in  77  Fed.  208,  23  C.  C.  A.  122]. 

That  invention  must  be  operative  see 
Bowers  v.  San  Francisco  Bridge  Co.,  91  F'ed. 
381;  Gormully,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stanley 
Cycle  Mfg.  Co.,  90  Fed.  279. 

17.  See  infra,  III,  C,  1,  d. 

18.  Bowers  v.  Von  Schmidt,  63  Fed.  572; 
Wilcox    v.    Bookwalter,    31    Fed.    224;    Con- 
solidated Bunging  Apparatus  Co.  v.  Woerle, 
29  Fed.  449;  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Norwich 
Nat.    Bank,    6    Fed.    377,    19    Blatchf.     123; 
Comstock  v.  Sandusky  Seat  Co.,  6  Fed.  Caa. 
No.    3,082,    3    Ban.   &   A.    188,    13    Off.   Gaz. 
230;  Dixon  v.  Moyer,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,931, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  324,  4  Wash.  68;  National 
Spring   Co.    v.   Union   Car    Spring  Mfg.    Co., 
17   Fed.   Cas.  No.   10,051,   1    Ban.   &  A.  240, 
12  Blatchf.  80,  6  Off.  Gaz.  224;   U.  S.,  etc., 
Salamander    Felting    Co..   v.    Haven,    28    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,788,  2  Ban.  &  A'.  164,  9  Off.  Gaz. 
253. 

Patentee  may  show  date  of  invention  on 
the  question  of  anticipation.  Anderson  V. 
Collins,  122  Fed.  451,  58  C.  C.  A.  669;  Ban- 
nerman  v.  Sanford,  85  Fed.  448 ;  .  American 
Sulphite  Pulp  Co.  v.  Rowland  Falls  Pulp 
Co.,  80  Fed.  395,  25  C.  C.  A.  500;  Von 
Schmidt  v.  Bowers,  80  Fed.  121,  25  C.  C.  A. 
32d;  Parker  v.  Hulme,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,740,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  44. 

19.  Elizabeth  v.  American  Nicholson  Pave- 
ment Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000;  Mc- 
Williams  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Blundell,  11  Fed.  419; 
Bartholomew    v.    Sawyer,    2    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,070,  4  Blatchf.  347,  1  Fish,  Pat.  Cas.  516; 
Brodie  v.  Ophir  Silver  Min.  Co.,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    1,919,   4   Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    137,    5    Sawy. 
60S;     Howe    v.    Morton,    12    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
6,769,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  586;  Judson  v.  Cope, 
14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1  Fish. 
Pat.    Cas.    615;    Nichols   v.    Pearce,    18    Fed. 
Cas.  No.   10,246,   7   Blatchf.  5;   Treadwell  v. 
Bladen,    24    Fed.    Cas.    No.    14.154,    1    Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  531,  4  Wash.  703;  White  v.  Allen, 

[HI,  B,  5] 


830     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


statutes  relating  to  patents  and  devices  known  and  used  in  foreign  countries,  but 
not  patented  there  nor  described  in  a  printed  publication,  such  inventions  or 
devices  are  patentable  in  the  United  States  by  a  person  without  notice  thereof.20 
If,  however,  he  has  notice  thereof  he  cannot  obtain  a  patent  even  though  the 
invention  or  discovery  had  not  been  patented  or  described  in  any  printed  publica- 
tion abroad.21  Prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  statute  under  consideration,  a  patent 
could  not  be  allowed  to  an  inventor  unless  he  showed  that  he  was  the  original 
inventor  in  relation  to  every  part  of  the  world.22 

6.  PUBLICATION  OR  PATENT  ABROAD.     By  the  express  provisions  of  such  statutes, 
however,  an  invention  or  discovery  cannot  be  patented  in  the  United  States, 
where  it  has  hitherto  been  patented  or  described  in  a  printed  publication  abroad.23 

7.  NOVELTY  OF  MEANS.     Patentable  novelty  may  reside  in  the  particular  means 
used  for  accomplishing  an  old  result.24 

8.  NOVELTY  OF  FUNCTION  OR  RESULT.25    Novelty  may  also  reside  in  the  use  of  old 
means  in  a  new  way  or  in  a  new  relation  where  it  performs  new  functions  and 
produces  a  new  result.26     It  is  not  negatived  by  the  existence  of  the  same  thing 


29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,535,  2  Cliff.  224,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  440. 

20.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4923    [U.  S. 
Comp.     St.     (1901)     p.     3396];     Hurlbut     V. 
Schillinger,   130  U.  S.  456,  9  S.  Ct.  584,  32 
L.    ed.    1011;    O'Reilly    v.    Morse,    15    How. 
(U.  S.)  62,  14  L.  ed.  601;  American  Sulphite 
Pulp    Co.    v.    Howland    Falls    Pulp    Co.,    70 
Fed.    986    [reversed  on  other  grounds   in   80 
Fed.  395,  25  C.  C.  A.  500] ;  Doyle  v.  Spauld- 
ing,    19    Fed.    744;    Worswick    Mfg.    Co.    t?. 
Steiger,  17  Fed.  250;   Comely  v.  Marckwald, 
17  Fed.  83,  21  Blatchf.  367;  Bartholomew  v. 
Sawyer,    2    Fed.    Cas.    No.    1,070,   4   Blatchf. 
347,    1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    516;     Coleman    v. 
Liesor,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,984;   Hays  v.  Sul- 
sor,   11   Fed.   Cas.  No.   6,271,   1   Bond  279,   1 
Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    532;    Judson    v.    Cope,    14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  615;   Roemer  v.  Logowitz,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    11,996;    Swift  v.   Whisen,   23    Fed.   Cas. 
No.    13,700,   2    Bond   115,   3   Fish.   Pat.    Cas. 
343.     And   see   infra,    III,    F,   2;    IV,    A,   9. 
Contra,  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,944,  3  McLean  250,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  118. 

In  Canada  prior  public  use  abroad  is  a  bar. 
Vannorman  v.  Leonard,  2  U.  C.  Q.  B.  72. 

21.  Forbush  v.  Cook,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,931, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  668. 

22.  Dawson  v.  Follen,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,670, 

1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  9,  2  Wash.  311. 

23.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4923   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3396];  In  re  Schaeffer, 

2  App.  Cas.   (D,  CO   1. 

That  foreign  publication  must  clearly  dis- 
close invention  see  Dececo  Co.  v.  George  E. 
Gilchrist  Co.,  125  Fed.  293,  60  C.  C.  A.  207 ; 
New  Process  Fermentation  Co.  v.  Koch,  21 
Fed.  580;  Jones  v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,405,  3  Cliff.  563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3 
Off.  Gaz.  630  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
91  U.  S.  171,  23  L.  ed.  275]  ;  Judson  v.  Cope, 
14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  615. 

Descriptions  in  foreign  publications  as  clear 
as  the  patent  will  anticipate. —  Woven-Wire 
Mattress  Co.  v.  Whittlesey,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,058,  8  Biss.  23. 

24.  Cochrane  v.  Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fab- 
rik,  111  U.  S.  293,  4  S.  Ct.  455,  28  L.  ed.  433; 

[III,  B,  5] 


American  Wood  Paper  Co.  v.  Fiber  Disinte- 
grating Co.,  23  Wall.  (U.  S.)  566,  23  L.  ed. 
31;  Anderson  r.  Collins,  122  Fed.  451,  58 
C.  C.  A.  669 ;  Deere  v.  Rock  Island  Plow  Co., 
84  Fed.  171,  28  C.  C.  A.  308;  Gottfried  v. 
Bartholomae,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,632,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  308,  8  Biss.  219,  13  Off.  Gaz.  1128; 
Wilton  v.  Railroad  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,856.  And  see  supra,  II,  A,  5. 

Novelty  of  operation  may  be  invention. 
Cimiotti  Unhairing  Co.  v.  American  Unhair- 
ing  Mach.  Co.,  115  Fed.  498,  53  C.  C.  A. 
230. 

Reversal  of  operation  may  be  invention. 
Diamond  Stone  Sawing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Brown, 
130  Fed.  896  [affirmed  in  131  Fed.  910,  70 
C.  C.  A.  248];  Eames  v.  Cook,  8  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  4,239,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  146;  In  re 
Hebbard,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,314,  McArthur 
Pat.  Cas.  543;  Howe  v.  Abbott,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,766,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  99,  2  Story  190. 

For  cases  showing  want  of  novelty  see 
Computing  Scale  Co.  v.  Automatic  Scale  Co., 
26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  238  [affirmed  in  204 
U.  S.  609,  27  S.  St.  307,  51  L.  ed.  645] ;  In  re 
Weber,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  29. 

25.  Application  to   new   use   as   involving 
invention  see  infra,  III,  E,   13. 

26.  Krementz  v.   S.  Cottle  Co.,   148  U.   S. 
556,  13  S.  Ct.  719,  37  L.  ed.  558;   Topliff  ». 
Topliff,   145  U.  S.  156,   12  S.  Ct.  825,  36  L. 
ed.  658;    Webster  Loom  Co.   r.   Higgins,   105 
U.  S.  580,  26  L.  ed.   1177;   Irwin  v.  Hassel- 
man,  97  Fed.  964,  38  C.  C.  A.  587 ;  American 
Automaton  Weighing  Mach  Co.   r.  Blauvelt, 
50  Fed.  213;  Clark  Patent  Steam,  etc.,  Regu- 
lator Co.  v.  Copeland,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,866, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  221;  Ex  p.  Jacobs,  13  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,158;  Poillon  r.  Schmidt,   19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,241,  6  Blatchf.,  290,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  476,  37  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    77;   Wilton 
r.    Railroad    Co.,    30    Fed.    Cas.    No.    17,856. 
And  see  infra,  III,  E,  13. 

Novelty  of  result  indicates  invention. 
Dodge  v.  Porter,  98  Fed.  624;  Wood  v. 
Packer,  17  Fed.  650. 

Substitution  of  equivalents. —  Tf  a  patentee 
shows  a  new  result  to  be  attained,  and  means 
which  are  new  and  novel  for  attaining  that 
result,  and  the  device  indicated  is  operative, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     831 


used  for  another  purpose  where  the  new  use  is  one  which  would  not  occur  to  one 
using  the  original  thing.27 

9.  NOVELTY  OF  FORM.     Changes  of  shape  or  form  to  produce  new  functions  and 
results  may  be  patentable ; M  but  paten  table  novelty  includes  more  than  mere 
changes  from  prior  inventions  since  the  changes  must  amount  to  invention;29 
mere  novelty  of  form  is  insufficient.80 

10.  NOVELTY  IN  COMBINATION.31     Novelty  may  reside  in  the  arrangement  or 
combination  of  old  elements  whereby  an  advantageous  result  is  accomplished.88 


his  patent  is  good,  even  if  in  subsequently  ap- 
plying it  he  varies  the  means  employed  by 
substituting  equivalents.  Hillard  v.  Fisher 
Book  Typewriter  Co.,  151  Fed.  34  {affirmed 
in  159  Fed.  439]. 

Where  the  question  of  novelty  is  in  doubt, 
the  fact  that  a  new  combination  and  arrange- 
ment of  known  elements  produces  a  new  and 
useful  result,  displacing  other  devices  em- 
ployed for  a  like  purpose,  is  sufficient  to  turn 
the  scale  in  favor  of  invention.  In  re  Thom- 
son, 26  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.)  419. 

A  change  in  prior  devices,  in  order  to  be 
patentable,  must  be  made  by  transferring 
an  old  device  to  use  in  an  entirely  different 
and  unrelated  art.  In  re  Thurston,  26  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  315. 

The  fact  that  a  new  device  or  construction 
may  have  displaced  others  by  reason  of  its 
manifest  superiority  is  material  only  when 
the  question  of  patentable  novelty  is  other- 
wise a  matter  of  doubt.  Millett  v .  Allen,  27 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  70. 

27.  Clough  v.  Gilbert,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,   106 
U.  S.  166,  1  S.  Ct.  188,  27  L.  ed.  134. 

28.  Winans  v.  Denmead,  15  How.   (U.  S.) 
330,  14  L.  ed.  717;   Gaboon  v.  Ring,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,292,  1  Cliff.  592,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
397;  Davis  v.  Palmer,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,645, 
2  Brock.  298,   1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  518;   Union 
Paper  Collar  Co.  v.  White,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,396,  2  Ban.  &  A.  60. 

29.  Lettelier  v.  Mann,  91  Fed.  909.     And 
see  infra,  III,  E,  1. 

30.  O'Reilly   v.   Morse,    15    How.    (U.    S.) 
62,   14  L.  ed.  601;   Dodge  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Ohio 
Valley  Pulley  Works,   101   Fed.  584;    Lovell 
v.  Johnson,  82  Fed.  206;  Swift  v.  Whisen,  23 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,700,  2  Bond  115,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  343;   Wilson  Packing  Co.  v.   Clapp,  30 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    17,851,   4   Ban.   &   A.   355,   8 
Biss.   545,   8   Reporter   262    [affirmed  in    105 
U.  S.  566,  26  L.  ed.   1172].     And  see  infra, 
III,  E,  9. 

Changes  of  size,  form,  or  proportion  not 
patentable.  Syracuse  Chilled  Plow  Co.  v. 
Robinson,  35  Fed.  502  [affirmed  in  145  U.  S. 
655,  12  S.  Ct.  988,  36  L.  ed.  856]  ;  West  v. 
Rae,  33  Fed.  45 ;  Ex  p.  Chatfield,  5  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,63 la;  Evans  v.  Eaton,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,559,  Pet.  C.  C.  322,  i  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  68; 
Evans  v.  Robinson,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,571, 
Brunn.  Col.  Cas.  400. 

Changing  the  form  of  a  die  is  not  inven- 
tion. Butler  v.  Steckel,  137  U.  S.  21,  11 
S.  Ct.  25,  34  L.  ed.  582  [affirming  27  Fed. 
219] ;  Smith  t?.  American  Bridge  Co.,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,002,  3  Ban.  &  A.  565,  8  Biss. 
312. 


Making  grate  to  fit  fire  pot  is  not  patent- 
able.  Howard  v.  Detroit  Stove  Works,  150 
U.  S.  164,  14  S.  Ct.  68,  37  L.  ed.  1039. 

31.  Combination  of  parts  of  prior  invention 
as  showing  prior  knowledge  or  use  see  infra, 
III,  C,  4,  i. 

Combination  or  aggregation  as  involving  in- 
vention see  infra,  III,  E,  20,  21. 

32.  Fenton  Metallic  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Office  Spe- 
cialty Mfg.   Co.,    12   App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    201 
[reversed   on    other    grounds    in    174    U.    S. 
492,   19  S.  Ct.   641,  43  L.  ed.    1058]  ;   A.   R. 
Milner    Seating    Co.    V.    Yesbera,    133    Fed. 
916,  67  C.  C.  A.  210;  Eck  v.  Kutz,  132  Fed. 
758;   Thomson-Houston  Electric   Co.  v.  Ohio 
Brass  Co.,  129  Fed.  378;  Stilwell-Bierce,  etc., 
Co.  t;.  Eufaula  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  117  Fed.  410, 
54  C.  C.  A.  584 ;  Ide  v.  Trorlicht,  etc.,  Carpet 
Co.,  115  Fed.  137,  53  C.  C.  A.  341;  National 
Hollow    Brake-Beam    Co.    v.    Interchangeable 
Brake-Beam  Co.,   106  Fed.  693,  45  C.  C.  A. 
544;    Schroeder   v.   Brammer,    98    Fed.    880; 
Michigan  Stove  Co.  v.  Fuller- Warren  Co.,  81 
Fed.   376;    U.    S.   Printing   Co.   v.   American 
Playing-Card    Co.,    70    Fed.    50;    Welling   v. 
Crane,  14  Fed.  571;  Densmore  v.  Schofield,  7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,809,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   148; 
Gottfried   v.    Phillip    Best    Brewing    Co.,    10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,633,  5  Ban.  &  A.  4,  17  Off. 
Gaz.  675;   Gray  v.  James,   10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,718,  Pet.  C.  C.  476,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  140; 
Sloat  v.   Spring,   22   Fed.    Cas.   No.    12,948o. 
And  see  infra,  III,  E,  20,  a. 

New  result  necessary. —  Unless  the  combi- 
nation of  well-known  elements  accomplishes 
some  new  result,  the  mere  multiplicity  of 
elements  does  not  make  it  patentable.  So 
long  as  each  element  performs  some  old  and 
well-known  function,  the  result  is  not  a  pat- 
entable invention,  but  an  aggregation  of  ele- 
ments. In  re  Hill,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
318. 

Substitution  of  element  performing  similar 
result. —  The  substitution  for  an  old  element, 
in  a  combination,  of  an  element  performing 
a  similar  function,  but  constructed  in  a  dif- 
ferent way,  does  not  render  the  combination 
itself  patentable  where  there  is  no  resultant 
change  in  the  operation.  In  such  a  case, 
although  the  substituted  element  may  be  su- 
perior, the  invention  lies  in  the  element,  and 
not  in  the  combination.  In  re  Hawley,  26 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  324. 

Determination  as  to  novelty.— Where  the 
elements  of  a  combination  sought  to  be  pat- 
ented are  well  known,  and,  if  not  known  in 
the  combination  described,  are  known  in 
analogous  combinations,  the  court  is  at  lib- 
erty to  determine  whether  there  is  any  inven- 

[III,  B,  10] 


832     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


C.  Anticipation33 — 1.  IN  GENERAL  —  a.  Introductory  Statement.  A  pat- 
entee's claim  to  an  invention  is  anticipated  when  it  appears  that  another  made  the 
invention  before  the  date  when  the  patentee  made  it.34  Such  anticipation  may 
consist  of  prior  patents  or  publications.85  To  authorize  the  allowance  of  a  patent 
there  must  be  a  substantial  difference  in  principle  from  prior  inventions.36  If  the 
prior  invention  relied  on  to  defeat  a  subsequent  patent  existed  and  was  used,  it  is 
of  no  consequence  whether  it  was  patented  or  not,87  and  abandonment  of  prior 
invention  does  not  prevent  anticipation.38  Nevertheless  mere  surmises  of  earlier 
students  of  the  same  subject  do  not  anticipate.89 

b.  Full  Disclosure  Necessary.  Nothing  is  an  anticipation  which  is  not  a  full 
and  complete  disclosure  of  the  invention  to  the  public  such  as  will  enable  those 
skilled  in  the  art  to  make  and  use  it.40  A  disclosure  which  is  insufficient  to  support 
a  patent  cannot  be  relied  upon  as  an  anticipation.41  To  amount  to  anticipation, 
however,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  ordinary  laborer  or  mechanic  could  under- 
stand the  disclosure.42 

e.  Identity.43  To  amount  to  anticipation  there  must  be  identity  in  substance 
and  not  merely  identity  in  form.44  The  two  things  must  accomplish  the  same 


tion  in  using  them  in  the  exact  combination 
claimed.  In  re  Hill,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
318. 

Claim  to  combination  is  an  admission  that 
elements  are  old.  Overweight  Counterbalance 
Elevator  Co.  r.  Improved  Order  of  Red  Men's 
Hall  Assoc.,  94  Fed.  155,  36  C.  C.  A.  125. 

Novelty  of  design,  how  determined. —  The 
novelty  of  a  design  is  to  be  determined  by  the 
comparative  appearance  of  the  designs  to  the 
eyes  of  average  observers,  and  not  to  the  eyes 
of  experts.  In  re  Schraubstadter,  26  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  331. 

33.  Original  inventors  and  priority  between 
inventors  see  infra,  IV,  A. 

34.  Chittenden  v.  Mallory,  41  Fed.  215. 
Anticipation  must  be  by  another  and  not 

by  patentee.     Eck  v.  Kutz,  132  Fed.  758. 

A  process  patent  can  only  be  anticipated  by 
a  similar  process. —  It  is  not  anticipated  by 
mechanism  which  might,  with  slight  altera- 
tions, have  been  adapted  to  carry  out  that 
process,  unless  at  least  such  use  of  it  would 
have  occurred  to  one  whose  duty  it  was  to 
make  practical  use  of  the  mechanism  de- 
scribed. Carnegie  Steel  Co.  v.  Cambria  Iron 
Co.,  185  U.  S.  403,  22  S.  Ct.  698,  48  L.  ed. 
968  [reversing  96  Fed.  850  (reversing  89  Fed. 
721)]. 

Several  patents. —  May  be  anticipation  by 
several  patents  each  showing  parts.  Voight- 
man  v.  Weis,  etc.,  Cornice  Co.,  133  Fed.  298. 

35.  Byerly  t/.  Cleveland  Linseed  Oil  Works, 
31  Fed.  73. 

Publication  without  use  will  bar.  Brooks 
v.  Bicknell,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,944,  3  McLean 
250,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  118;  Brooks  v.  Jen- 
kins, 4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,953,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
41,  3  McLean  432;  Ex  p.  Seeley,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,627;  Smith  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,058. 

36.  Smith    v.    Pearce,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
13,089,  2  McLean  176,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.   13. 

37.  Colt  v.  Massachusetts  Arms  Co.,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,030,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  108;  Rich  v. 
Lippincott,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,758,  2  Fish. 
Pnt.   Cas.   1;    Whipple  v.   Baldwin  Mfg.  Co., 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,514,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  29. 

[HI,  C,  l,a] 


38.  Merrimac  Mattress   Mfg.   Co.  i\   Feld- 
man,  133  Fed.  64. 

39.  American  Graphophone  Co.  v.  Leeds,  87 
Fed.  873. 

40.  Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ideal  Stopper 
Co.,  123  Fed.  666  [affirmed  in  131  Fed.  244, 
65    C.    C.    A.    436];    U.    S.    Peg- Wood,    etc., 
Co.   v.   B.   F.   Sturtevant   Co.,    122    Fed.   470 
[affirmed  in  125  Fed.  378,  60  C.  C.  A.  244] ; 
McNeely  v.  Williames,  96  Fed.  978,  37  C.  C.  A. 
641;  Acme  Flexible  Clasp  Co.  v.  Cary  Mfg. 
Co.,  96   Fed.   344,  99   Fed.   500; -Shannon  v. 
Bruner,  33  Fed.  289    [affirmed  in   149  U.  S. 
767,  13  S.  Ct.  1043,  37  L.  ed.  930]  ;  Nathan  v. 
New  York  El.  R.   Co.,  2  Fed.  225;   Atlantic 
Giant    Powder    Co.    v.    Parker,    2    Fed.    Cas. 
No.  625,  4  Ban.  &  A.  292,   16  Blatchf.  281, 
16   Off.   Gaz.   495;    Cahill    i\   Brown,   4   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,291,  3  Ban.  &  A.  580,  15  Off.  Gaz. 
697;    Jenkins   v.   Walker,    13    Fed.   Cas.   No. 
7,275,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  347,  Holmes   120,   1 
Off.  Gaz.  359 ;  Neilson  v.  Betts,  L.  R.  5  H.  L. 
1,  40  L.  J.  Ch.  317,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  1121;  Hill 
v.  Evans,  4  De  G.  F.  &  J.  '288,  8  Jur.  N.  S. 
525,  31  L.  J.  Ch.  457,  6  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  90r 
65  Eng.  Ch.  223,  45  Eng.  Reprint  1195;  Betts 
i\  Menzies,  10  H.  L.  Cas.   117,  9  Jur.  N.  S. 
29,  31  L.  J.  Q.  B.  233,  7  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
110,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  1,  11  Eng.  Reprint  970; 
Otto  v.  Linford,  46  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  35 ;  Betts 
v.  De  Vitre,  11  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  445;  General 
Engineering   Co.    r.    Dominion    Cotton   Mills 
Co.,  6  Can.  Exch.  309. 

41.  Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Kalle, 
94  Fed.  163. 

42.  Anglo-American   Brush    Electric   Light 
Corp.  v.  King,  [1892]  A.  C.  367;   Pickard  v. 
Prescott,  [1892]  A.  C.  263;  Betts  v.  Neilson, 
L.  R.  3  Ch.  429,  37  L.  J.  Ch.  321,  18  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  165,  16  Wkly.  Rep.  524-. 

43.  Conclusiveness  and  effect  of  decision  of 
patent  office  as  to  identity  of  invention  in 
reissue  proceedings  sea  infra,  VIII,  G. 

Identity  of  invention  as  showing  right  of 
patentee  to  reissue  see  infra,  VIII,  C. 

44.  Matter  of  Merrill,  1  McArthur  (D.  C.) 
301;    Fryer  v.  Mutual   L.   Ins.   Co.,  30   Fed. 
787;    Crandal    v.    Walters,    9    Fed.    659,    20 


PATENTS  [30  Cye.]     833 

purpose  by  substantially  the  same  means  operating  in  substantially  the  same  way.45 


Blatchf.  97;  Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  53,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1. 

Similarity  of  appearance  is  not  proof  of 
identity.  Carr  v.  Rice,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,440, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  198. 

Identity  of  form  is  not  necessary.  In  re 
Bedford,  14  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  376. 

Identity  is  not  a  matter  of  words  of  de- 
scription but  of  things.  Poupard  v.  Fardell, 
18  Wkly.  Rep.  127. 

45.  Decisions  in  which  facts  were  held  to 
show  identity. —  In  re  Hodges,  28  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  525;  In  re  McNeil,  28  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  461 ;  In  re  Hoey,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
416;  In  re  Welch,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  362; 
Johnston  i?.  Woodbury,  109  Fed.  567,  48 
C.  C.  A.  550;  Root  v.  Third-Ave.  R.  Co.,  43 
Fed.  73 ;  Berryman  v.  Ainsworth  Boiler,  etc., 
Covering  Co.,  40  Fed.  879;  Norton  v.  Gary, 
39  Fed.  544;  Wight  Fire-Proofing  Co.  v. 
Chicago  Fire-Proof  Co.,  35  Fed.  582;  Sox 
«?.  Taylor  Iron  Works,  30  Fed.  835  [affirmed 
in  149  U.  S.  785,  13  S.  Ct.  1051,  37  L.  ed. 
964] ;  Dodds  v.  Stoddard,  17  Fed.  645;  Matte- 
son  v.  Caine,  17  Fed.  525,  8  Sawy.  498;  Cran- 
dall  v.  Richardson,  8  Fed.  808;  Blackman  v. 
Kibbler,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,471,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
641,  17  Blatchf.  333,  17  Off.  Gaz.  107;  Gould 
v.  Ballard,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,635,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
324,  13  Off.  Gaz.  1081;  Richardson  v.  Lock- 
wood,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,787,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  454,  4  Off.  Gaz.  398. 

Decisions  in  which  the  facts  were  held  to 
show  lack  of  identity. —  In  re  Weiss,  21  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  214;  In  re  Marsden,  14  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  223;  In  re  Green,  20  D.  C.  237; 
Thayer  v.  Wold,  142  Fed.  776  [affirmed  in 
148  Fed.  227,  78  C.  C.  A.  350];  Greene  v. 
United  Shoe  Mach.  Co.,  132  Fed.  973,  66 
C.  C.  A.  43;  Diamond  State  Iron  Co.  v. 
Goldie,  84  Fed.  972,  28  C.  C.  A.  589;  Chase 
v.  Fillebrown,  58  Fed.  374;  Jonathan  Mills 
Mfg.  Co.  17.  Whitehouse,  56  Fed.  589;  Edison 
Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Westinghouse,  55  Fed. 
490  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  63  Fed. 
588,  11  C.  C.  A.  342]  ;  Winchester  Repeating 
Arm  Co.  t?.  American  Buckle,  etc.,  Co.,  54 
Fed.  703;  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v.  W.  G.  & 
A.  R.  Morrison  Co.,  54  Fed.  693;  Ricker  v. 
Crocker-Wheeler  Motor  Co.,  54  Fed.  519; 
Roberts  v.  H.  P.  Nail  Co.,  53  Fed.  916;  Tibbe, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  17.  Heineken,  43  Fed.  75 ;  Brush 
Electric  Co.  v.  Julian  Electric  Co.,  41  Fed. 
679;  Norton  v.  Cary,  39  Fed.  544;  O'Brien 
Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Peoria  Plow  Co.,  34  Fed. 
786;  Enterprise  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sargent,  34  Fed. 
134;  Hammerschlag  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bancroft,  32 
Fed.  585;  Starling  v.  St.  Paul  Plow  Works, 
32  Fed.  290;  Cincinnati  Ice-Mach.  Co.  v. 
Foss-Schneider  Brewing  Co.,  31  Fed.  469; 
Adams,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rathbone,  26  Fed. 
262;  Hicks  v.  Otto,  19  Fed.  749;  Bruce  v. 
Marder,  10  Fed.  750,  20  Blatchf.  355;  Robin- 
son v.  Sutter,  8  Fed.  828,  10  Biss.  100  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  119  U.  S.  530, 
7  S.  Ct.  376,  30  L.  ed.  492] ;  Watkjns  v.  Cin- 
cinnati, 8  Fed.  325;  Hobbs  v.  King,  8  Fed. 
91;  Zinn  v.  Weiss,  7  Fed.  914;  Pennington  v. 
[53] 


King,  7  Fed.  462 ;  Ex  p.  Barstow,  2  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,063;  Blake  v.  Rawson,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,499,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  74,  Holmes  200,  3 
Off.  Gaz.  122;  Bullock  Printing  Press  Co.  v. 
Jones,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,132,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
195,  13  Off.  Gaz.  124;  Cooke  v.  New  York 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,176,  4 
Ban.  &  A.  398,  16  Off.  Gaz.  856;  Decker  v. 
Grote,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,726,  10  Blatchf.  331, 
6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  143,  3  Off.  Gaz.  65 ;  Gibbs  v. 
Johnson,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,384;  Ex  p.  Hay- 
den,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,256;  In  re  Hebbard, 
11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,314,  1  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
543;  Ex  p.  Leach,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,155; 
Locomotive  Engine  Safety  Truck  Co.  v.  Erie 
R.  Co.,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,452,  10  Blatchf. 
292,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  187,  3  Off.  Gaz.  93; 
Masury  v.  Tiemann,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,271,  8 
Blatchf.  426,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  524;  Platt  v. 
U.  S.  Patent  Button,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,222,  9  Blatchf.  342,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  265,  1  Off.  Gaz.  524;  Reeves  v.  Key- 
stone Bridge  Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,660,  5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  456,  ,1  Off.  Gaz.  466;  Schil- 
linger  v.  Gunther,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,458, 
17  Blatchf.  66,  14  Off.  Gaz.  713;  In  re  Smith, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,982,  1  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  255;  Tilghman  v.  Morse,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,044,  9  Blatchf.  421,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
323,  1  Off.  Gaz.  574;  Yale,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
North,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,123,  5  Blatchf. 
455,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  279. 

Lack  of  identity  in  woven  fabrics  see  Hoyle 
v.  Kerr,  58  Fed.  395,  7  C.  C.  A.  269. 

Lack  of  identity  in  materials  see  Tibbe, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Lamparter,  51  Fed.  763; 
Shuter  v,  Davis,  16  Fed.  564;  Simons  v. 
Blackinton,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,866,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  481. 

Lack  of  identity  in  process  see  Simonds 
Rolling  Mach.  Co.  17.  Hathorn  Mfg.  Co.,  93 
Fed.  958,  36  C.  C.  A.  24. 

Substantial  identity  of  materials  see  Giles 
v.  Heysinger,  150  U.  S.  627,  14  S.  Ct.  211, 

37  L.  ed.  1204. 

Difference  in  operation  see  Keystone  Mfg. 
Co.  i?.  Adams,  151  U.  S.  139,  14  S.  Ct.  295, 

38  L.  ed.   103;   Hubbell  v.  U.  S.,  20  Ct.  01. 
354;   Adams  v.  Joliet  Mfg.  Co.,   1   Fed.  Cas. 
No.  56,  3  Ban.  &  A.  1,  12  Off.  Gaz.  93;  Barnes 
17.  Straus,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,022,  9  Blatchf. 
553,  5   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   531,  2   Off.  Gaz.   62; 
Miller  17.  Androscoggin  Pulp  Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,559,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  340,  Holmes  142,  1 
Off.  Gaz.  409;  Potter  17.  Muller,  19  Fed.  Cas  No. 
11,334,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465;  Pike  v.  Provi- 
dence, etc.,  R.  Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,163, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  560,  Holmes  445,  6  Off.  Gaz.  575 ; 
Putnam  v.  Hickey,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,480, 
3  Biss.  157,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  334,  2  Off.  Gaz. 
225;    Sanford    v.   Messer,    21    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
12,314,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  411,  Holmes  149,  2 
Off.    Gaz.    470;    Watson   v.    Cunningham,    29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,280,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  528. 

Difference  in  result  see  Robbins  v.  Colum- 
bus Watch  Co.,  50  Fed.  545;  Stuart  17.  Thor- 
man,  37  Fed.  90;  Putnam  v.  Weatherbee,  20 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,485,  2  Ban.  &  A.  78,  8  Off. 

[Ill,  C,  1,  e] 


834:     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


Resemblance  without  identity  is  insufficient.46  But  identity  need  extend  no  fur- 
ther than  to  matter  claimed.47  And  mere  superiority  of  the  invention  for  which 
a  patent  is  sought  does  not  prevent  anticipation.48  What  would  infringe  the  claims 
of  a  patent  will  anticipate  it  if  prior  in  date.49 

d.  General  Knowledge  of  Public  Unnecessary.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the 
anticipating  invention  be  known  generally  or  that  it  is  a  matter  of  common 
knowledge,50  but  it  is  sufficient  that  some  members  of  the  public  in  this  country 
knew  of  the  invention.51  Knowledge  by  a  single  member  of  the  public  is  sufficient.52 


Gaz.  320;  Putnam  v.  Yerrington,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,486,  2  Ban.  &  A.  237,  9  Off.  Gaz. 
689;  Rice  v.  Heald,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,752 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  104  U.  S. 
737,  26  L.  ed.  910];  Willimantic  Linen  Co. 
v.  Clark  Thread  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,763, 

4  Ban.  &  A.  133. 

Lack  of  identity  in  the  structure  of  books 
see  Hawes  v.  Cook,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,236, 

5  Off.  Gaz.  493;  Hawes  v.  Gage,  11  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,237,  5  Off.  Gaz.  494;  Hawes  v.  Wash- 
burne,    11    Fed.   Cas.   No.   6,242,   5  Off.   Gaz. 
491. 

Designs. —  Identity  of  designs  is  identity  of 
appearance  so  that  one  would  be  mistaken  for 
the  other.  Gorham  Mfg.  Co.  v.  White,  14 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  511,  20  L.  ed.  731;  Sagen- 
dorph  v.  Hughes,  95  Fed.  478;  Frank  v. 
Hess,  84  Fed.  170;  Braddock  Glass  Co.  v. 
Macbeth,  64  Fed.  118,  12  C.  C.  A.  70;  Britton 
v.  White  Mfg.  Co.,  61  Fed.  93.  Ability  to 
distinguish  one  design  from  another  will  not 
avoid  anticipation.  In  re  Freeman,  23  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  226. 

Changes  and  additions. — An  old  device  will 
not  be  considered  sufficient  to  defeat  a  pat- 
ent, when  its  construction  is  such  that  radi- 
cal changes  and  additions  would  be  required 
before  it  could  be  made  to  perform  the  work 
of  the  patented  device  satisfactorily.  West- 
ern Electric  Co.  v.  Home  Tel.  Co.,  85  Fed. 
649 ;  Consolidated  Bunging  Apparatus  Co. 
v.  Woerle,  29  Fed.  449;  Livingston  v.  Jones, 
15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,413,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  521. 
There  is  no  anticipation  where  modification 
is  necessary  to  produce  the  desired  result. 
Fenton  Metallic  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Office  Specialty 
Mfg.  Co.,  12  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  201;  Ryan  v. 
Newark  Spring  Mattress  Co.,  96  Fed.  100. 

Identity  of  structure  is  not  necessary  but 
the  same  result  should  be  produced  by  sub- 
stantially the  same  means  and  operation.  In 
re  Marshutz,  13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  228. 

Reversal  of  operation  will  not  avoid  antici- 
pation. Bryant  Electric  Co.  v.  Electric  Pro- 
tection Co.,  110  Fed.  215. 

Mere  suggestions  as  to  what  may  be  done 
but  not  how  to  do  it  will  not  anticipate. 
Consolidated  Brake-Shoe  Co.  v.  Detroit  Steel, 
etc.,  Co.,  59  Fed.  902. 

Devices  may  be  the  same,  although  not  de- 
signed for  same  use.  Codman  v.  Amia,  70 
Fed,  710  [affirmed  in  74  Fed.  634,  20  C.  C.  A. 
566] ;  Wright,  etc.,  Wire-Cloth  Co.  v.  Clin- 
ton, 67  Fed.  790,  14  C.  C.  A.  646. 

Inefficient  substitutes. —  A  patent  for  a 
successful  machine  is  not  void  for  anticipa- 
tion, because  a  prior  machine  intended  for  a 
different  purpose  may  possibly  be  capable 

[HI,  C,  1,  c] 


of  use  as  an  inefficient  substitute  for  the 
later  machine.  United  Shirt,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Beattie,  149  Fed.  736,  79  C.  C.  A.  442  [af- 
firming 138  Fed.  136]. 

46.  Wilson  v.  Coon,  6  Fed.  611,  18  Blatchf. 
532;  Parker  v.  Stiles,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,749, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  319,  5  McLean  44. 

47.  Patent    covers    only   what    is    claimed. 
McClain    v.    Ortmayer,    141    U.    S.    419,    12 
S.   Ct.   76,   35   L.   ed.   800;    Roemer  v.   New- 
mann,  132  U.  S.  103,  10  S.  Ct.  12,  33  L.  ed. 
277;  Burns  v.  Meyer,  100  U.  S.  671,  25  L.  ed. 
738;   Merrell  v.   Yeomans,   C.   D.    1877,   279; 
Keystone  v.  Phoenix,  C.  D.  1877,  384 ;  Sutter 
i\  Robinson,  C.  D.  1885,  155;   Lehigh  Valley 
v.  Mellon,  C.  D.  1881,  485. 

48.  Daniels  v.  Restein,   131   Fed.  469    [af- 
firmed  in    146    Fed.   74,   76    C.   C.   A.   536]; 
Waterman    v.    Thomson,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,260,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  461. 

49.  Miller   v.   Eagle   Mfg.    Co.,    151    U.    S. 
186,  14  S,  Ct.  310,  38  L.  ed.  121 ;  Knapp  v. 
Morss,  150  U.  S.  221.  14  S.  Ct.  81,  37  L.  ed. 
1059;    Grant  v.   Walter,    148   U.    S.   547,    13 
S.  Ct.  699,  37  L.  ed.  552;   Peters  r.  Active 
Mfg.   Co.,    129   U.   S.   530,   9   S.   Ct.   389,   32 
L.    ed.    738;    Electric    Smelting,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Pittsburg   Reduction    Co.,    125    Fed.   926,    60 
C.  C.  A.  636 ;  Eames  v.  Worcester  Polytechnic 
Inst.,  123  Fed.  67,  60  C.  C.  A.  37;  National 
Hollow   Brake   Beam   Co.   v.   Interchangeable 
Brake  Beam  Co.,  99  Fed.  758;   Electric  Ac- 
cumulator Co.  v.  Julien  Electric  Co.,  38  Fed. 
117;  Peters  v.  Active  Mfg.  Co.,  21  Fed.  319. 

What  would  not  infringe  cannot  anticipate. 
Stainthorp  v.  Elkinton,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,278,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  349. 

Omission  which  would  be  supplied  by  me- 
chanic does  not  prevent  anticipation.  Wood- 
man v.  Stimpson,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,979, 
3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  98. 

50.  Bedford  v.  Hunt,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1.217, 
1   Mason   302,    1   Robb  Pat.   Cas.    148. 

Disuse  of  prior  device  does  not  avoid  antici- 
pation. Packard  v.  Gilbert,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,651. 

Use  concealed  from  public  view  will  antici- 
pate. Spring  v.  Packard,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,260,  1  Ban.  &  A.  531,  7  Off.  Gaz.  341. 

51.  Daniel   v.   Restein,    131    Fed.   4G9    [af- 
firmed in    146    Fed.    74,   76   C.   C.   A.   536]  ; 
Evans  v.  Hettick,  8   Fed.   Cas.  No.   4.562,    1 
Robb  Pat.   Cas.    166,   3   Wash.   408    [affirmed 
in  7  Wheat.  453,  5  L.  ed.  490]. 

52.  Egbert  r.  Lippmann,  104  U.  S.  333,  26 
L.   ed.   755;   McClurg  «.   Kingsland,    1    How. 
(U.  S.)    202,   11   L.  ed.   102;    Boston  Elastic 

Fabrics  Co.  v.  East  Hampton  Rubber  Thread 
Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,675,  2  Ban.  &  A.  268, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     835 


e.  Patentee's  Knowledge  of  Anticipation  Unnecessary.  It  is  not  of  con- 
sequence that  the  patentee  made  the  invention  by  his  own  efforts  and  thought 
and  in  ignorance  of  the  prior  invention  by  another,  since  the  fact  of  prior  inven- 
tion is  what  controls.53 

2.  PRIOR  PATENTS — a.  In  General.  A  patent  disclosing  the  invention  granted 
in  this  country  or  abroad  before  the  claimant's  date  of  invention  is  a  bar  to  the 
grant  of  a  patent  to  him  for  that  invention.54  A  prior  patent  alleged  to  anticipate 
must  be  taken  in  the  meaning  disclosed  upon  its  face,  and  extrinsic  evidence  is 
not  admissible  to  reconstruct  it,  as  by  showing  that  a  word  having  a  sensible  mean- 
ing in  the  context  was  erroneously  used  for  another  word.55  It  cannot  properly  have 
implied  into  it,  from  necessity,  more  than  it  fairly  shows,  to  make  it  represent  an 
operative  structure.  What  is  required  and  not  so  shown  is  left  for  later  inven- 
tors.56 An  impracticable  prior  device,  not  capable  of  performing  the  functions  of 
a  subsequent  patented  device  that  is  practicable  and  useful,  is  not  an  anticipa- 
tion.57 Furthermore  in  order  that  a  prior  patent  may  operate  to  defeat  a  subse- 
quent patent,  the  two  must  be  for  the  same  invention.58 

b.  Foreign  Patents.  A  foreign  patent  in  order  to  invalidate  an  American 
patent  must  antedate  the  invention  patented,59  not  merely  the  application  for  letters 
patent,60  or  the  issuance  of  the  patent  by  the  United  States.61  A  foreign  patent  exists 
as  a  patent  only  as  of  the  date  when  the  invention  was  published  or  made  accessi- 
ble to  the  public.62  An  invention  is  not  "  patented  "  in  England  within  the  mean* 
ing  of  the  act  of  congress  until  the  enrolment  or  sealing  of  the  complete  specifica- 
tions.63 The  enrolled  specification  takes  effect  only  from  the  date  of  its  enrolment, 


9  Off.  Gaz.  745;  Packard  v.  Gilbert,  18  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,651;  Reed  v.  Cutter,  20  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  11,645,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  81,  1  Story 
590;  Rich  v.  Lippincott,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,758,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1;  Stephens  v.  Felt, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,388,  2  Blatchf.  37,  Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  144.  And  see  supra,  III,  B,  3. 

53.  See  infra,  III,  E,  4. 

Ignorance  of  patentee  no  defense.  Patter- 
son v.  Gas  Light,  etc.,  Co.,  3  App.  Cas.  239, 
47  L.  J.  Ch.  402,  38  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  303, 
26  Wkly.  Rep.  482;  In  re  Honiball,  9  Moore 
P.  C.  378,  14  Eng.  Reprint  340. 

54.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §§   4886,  4923 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3396];  Kelleher 
v.  Darling,    14  Fed.  Cas.  No.   7,653,   3  Ban. 
&   A.   438,    4    Cliff.    424,    14   Off.    Gaz.    673; 
Muntz  v.  Foster,  2  Web.  Pat.  Cas.  96. 

It  is  a  good  defense  to  an  action  for  in- 
fringement that  the  patented  device  was  an- 
ticipated by  a  prior  patent  to  the  same  pat- 
entee. Barnes  Automatic  Sprinkler  Co.  v. 
Walforth  Mfg.  Co..  60  Fed.  605,  9  C.  C.  A. 
154. 

55.  Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Kalle, 
94  Fed.  163. 

56.  Wirt  v.  Farrelly,  84  Fed.  891. 

57.  Bowers  v.  San  Francisco  Bridge  Co.,  91 
Fed.  381 ;  Harwood  v.  Mill  River  Woolen  Mfg. 
Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,187,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
526;    Hitchcock   t?.    Tremaine,    12    Fed.    Cas. 
No.  6,538,  8  Blatchf.  440,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
508. 

Slight  modifications  to  perform  function  of 
later  patent. —  A  patent  is  not  anticipated  by 
prior  patents  for  devices  which  might  by- 
slight  modifications  have  been  made  to  per- 
form the  functions  of  that  of  the  later  pat- 
ent, where  it  does  not  appear  that  the  pat- 
entees had  in  mind  their  use  or  adaptation  to 


accomplish  such  result.  Gunn  v.  Bridgeport 
Brass  Co.,  148  Fed.  239  [reversed  in  152  Fed. 
434,  81  C.  C.  A.  576,  where  patent  was  de- 
clared void]. 

58.  See  infra,  V,  C,  8. 

59.  Elizabeth  t?.  American  Nicholson  Pave- 
ment Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000 ;  Coch- 
rane  v.  Deener,  94  U.  S.  780,  24  L.  ed.  139; 
Columbus  Chain  Co.  v.  Standard  Chain  Co., 
148    Fed.    622,    78    C.    C.    A.    394;    Howe   v. 

Morton,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,769,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  586. 

The  words  "previously  patented  in  a  for- 
eign country  "  must  be  taken  to  mean  "  pat- 
ented according  to  the  laws  and  usages  of 
such  foreign  country."  Atlas  Glass  Co.  v. 
Simonds  Mfg.  Co.,  102  Fed.  643,  647,  42 
C.  C.  A.  554. 

60.  Howe  v.  Morton,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,769, 
1    Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   586;    White  v.  Allen,   29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,535,  2  Cliff.  224,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  440,  holding  that  where  a  foreign  pat- 
ent,   granted    before    the    application    of    the 
American  patentee,  is  relied  upon  to  destroy 
the  novelty  of  the  American  patent,  the  pat- 
entee may  prove  that  his  invention  was  made 
prior  to  the  granting  of  the  foreign  patent. 

61.  Elizabeth  v.  American  Nicholson  Pave- 
ment Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000. 

In  other  words  an  invention  reduced  to 
practice  in  the  United  States  prior  to  the 
granting  of  an  English  patent  will  be  sus- 
tained as  against  such  patent.  National 
Spring  Co.  v.  Union  Car  Spring  Mfg.  Co.,  17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,051,  1  Ban.  &  A.  240,  12 
Blatchf.  80,  6  Off.  Gaz.  224. 

62.  De    Florez   v.   Raynolds,    17    Off.    Gaz. 
503. 

63^  Rousseau  v.  Brown,  21  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  73;  Ireson  v.  Pierce,  39  Fed.  795; 

[III,  C,  2,  b] 


836     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


and  not  from  the  date  of  the  filing  of  the  provisional  specification.64  The  instru- 
ment known  under  the  German  law  as  "  Gebrauchsmuster"  is  not  one  the  filing 
of  which  charges  any  one  with  notice  of  its  contents  or  which  has  the  effect  of  a 
foreign  patent  as  an  anticipation  of  a  subsequent  United  States  patent.65 

c.  Paper  Patents.     It  is  well  settled  that  mere  paper  patents  may  negative 
otherwise  patentable  novelty,  provided  they  sufficiently  disclose  the  principles  of 
the  alleged  invention,  or  provided  the  alleged  objections  can  be  obviated  by  mere 
mechanical  skill.66     But  anticipatory  matter  which  has  never  gone  into  practical 
use  is  to  be  narrowly  construed.67 

d.  Secret  Patents.     The  expression  "  patented,"  as  used  in  a  statute,68  provid- 
ing that,  in  an  action  for  infringement,  defendant  may  prove  that  the  patentee's 
invention  had  been  patented  prior  to  his  supposed  invention,  means  only  invention 
laid  open  to  the  public  and  protected  to  the  inventors.69     There  are,  however,  in 
some  foreign  countries,  patents  which  may,  for  public  and  special  reasons,  be  kept 
secret.     Therefore  defendant  must  show  whether  the  alleged  anticipating  patent 
was  a  public  or  a  private  grant.70 

e.  Sufficiency  of  Description.     A  prior  patent  to  invalidate  a  subsequent  pat- 
ent must  describe  the  invention  in  such  full,  clear,  and  exact  terms  as  to  enable 
one  skilled  in  the  art  to  construct  and  use  it  without  the  necessity  of  making 
experiments.71     The  sufficiency  of  the  description  in  the  prior  patent  must  be 


Electrical  Accumulator  Co.  v.  Julien  Elec- 
tric Co.,  38  Fed.  117;  Railway  Register  Mfg. 
Co.  r.  Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Fed.  522 
[affirmed  in  149  U.  S.  783,  13  S.  Ct.  1051,  37 
L.  ed.  958]  ;  Howe  r.  Morton,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,769,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  586;  Williman- 
tic  Linen  Co.  r.  Clark  Thread  Co.,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,763,  4  Ban.  &  A.  133;  American 
Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  Cushman,  65  Off.  Gaz.  135. 

64.  Howe  v.  Morton,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,769, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  586. 

An  English  provisional  specification  is  not 
an  anticipation  until  it  has  been  printed,  the 
invention  described  in  it  not  being  patented 
until  the  completed  specification  is  filed. 
Smith  v.  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.,  93 
U.  S.  486,  23  L.  ed.  952;  Parsons  v.  Colgate, 
15  Fed.  600,  21  Blatchf.  171;  Coburn  v. 
Schroeder,  11  Fed.  425,  20  Blatchf.  392. 

65.  Steiner  v.  Schwarz,  148  Fed.  863. 

66.  Pickering   v.   McCullough,    104    U.    S. 
310,  26  L.  ed.  749;  Universal  Winding  Co.  v. 
Willimantic   Linen    Co.,   80   Off.    Gaz.    1273; 
Miller  v.  Meriden  Bronze  Co.,  79  Off.  Gaz.  1520. 

Where  more  than  mechanical  skill  is  re- 
quired a  paper  patent  will  not  anticipate. 
Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Winchester 
Ave.  R.  Co.,  71  Fed.  192. 

67.  Simonds  Rolling-Mach.  Co.  v.  Hathorn 
Mfg.  Co.,  90  Fed.  201. 

However  a  patentee  cannot  be  denied  in- 
vention because  of  a  prior  patent  for  a  device 
which  never  came  into  use,  unless  the  idea 
upon  which  his  patent  is  predicated  is  so 
clearly  set  forth  or  suggested  in  the  alleged 
anticipating  patent  that  a  mechanic  with 
such  patent  before  him  could  by  the  exercise 
of  mere  mechanical  skill  so  modify  propor- 
tions or  change  the  mode  of  operation  as  to 
overcome  the  difficulties  which  excluded  the 
prior  device  from  commercial  utility.  Ideal 
Stopper  Co.  v.  Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.,  131 
Fed.  244,  65  C.  C.  A.  436  [affirming  123 
Fed.  666]. 

[III.  C,  2,  b] 


68.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)   §  4920,  par.  3. 

69.  Schoerken   v.    Swift,  etc.,   Co.,   7    Fed. 
469,   19  Blatchf.  209;   Brooks  v.  Norcross,  4 
Fed.    Cas.    No.     1,957,     2    Fish.    Pat.     Cas. 
661. 

70.  Brooks   f.   Norcross,   4   Fed.    Cas.   No. 
1,957,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  661.    But,  as  against 
an  objection  that  it  did  not  appear  from  the 
copy  of  a  foreign  patent,  introduced  to  show 
prior  invention,  whether  it  was  an  open  or  a 
secret  one,  it  has  been  held  that,  since  only 
public  records  are  provable  by  copy  certified 
merely,  and  as  the  authorities  of  a  foreign 
government   would   not   have   a   patent   in   a 
condition  to  be  certified  if  it  was  secret,  the 
fact  that  it  is  certified  shows  it  to  be  public. 
Schoerken  v.  Swift,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Fed.  4G9,  19 
Blatchf.  209. 

71.  Matter    of    McCloskey,    3    Mac  Arthur 
(D.  C.)    14;  Pettibone  v.  Pennsylvania  Steel 
Co.,  133  Fed.  730  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  141  Fed.  95] ;    Springfield  Furnace  Co.  v. 
Miller  Down-Draft  Furnace  Co.,  96  Fed.  418; 
Carnegie  Steel   Co.  v.  Cambria  Iron  Co.,  89 
Fed.   721;    Hanifen  v.  E.  H.   Godschalk   Co., 
84  Fed.  649,  28  C.  C.  A.  507    [reversing  78 
Fed.    811]  ;    Consolidated   Brake-Shoe    Co.   v. 
Detroit   Steel,  etc.,   Co.,  59  Fed.  902;   U.   S. 
Bung   Mfg.    Co.    v.    Independent    Bung,    etc., 
Co.,  31  Fed.  76,  24  Blatchf.  406;  Nathan  v. 
New  York  El.  R.   Co.,  2  Fed.  225;   Atlantic 
Giant-Powder  Co.  v.  Parker,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
G25,   4   Ban.   &  A.   292,    16  Blatchf.   281,    16 
Off.  Gaz.  87;   Goff  r.  Stafford,   10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,504,  3  Ban.  &  A.  610,  14  Off.  Gaz.  748; 
Jenkins  v.   Walker,   13   Fed.   Cas.  No.  7,275, 
5   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   347,   Holmes    120,    1    Off. 
Gaz.    359;    Woodman    r.    Stimpson,    30    Fed. 
Cas.   No.    17,979,  3   Fish.   Pat.    Cas.   98    [re- 
versed on   other   grounds    in    10    Wall.    117, 
19  L.  ed.  866];   Betts  v.  Men/.ies,   10  H.  Lv 
Cas.   117,   9  Jur.  N.   S.  29,  31  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
233,  7  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  110,  11  Wkly.  Rep. 
1,  11  Eng.  Reprint  970. 


PA  TENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     837 


tested  by  the  knowledge  of  persons  skilled  in  the  art  as  it  existed  at  the  date  of 
such  patent.72 

f.  Failure  to  Claim  Immaterial.  It  is  immaterial  whether  the  prior  patent 
includes  a  claim  to  the  subject-matter  so  long  as  it  discloses  it  with  such  clearness 
as  to  enable  one  skilled  in  the  art  to  make  and  use  it.73  The  failure  of  the  patentee 
to  include  the  device  among  the  claims  of  his  own  invention  implies  either  that 
he  abandoned  it  to  the  public  or  that  he  regarded  it  as  well  known.74  The  patent 
is  evidence  of  the  state  of  the  art  at  the  time  the  drawings  arid  specifications  upon 
which  it  was  afterward  granted  were  made,  and  it  is  the  state  of  the  art  and  not 
the  patent  which  constitutes  anticipation.73 

3.  PRIOR  PUBLICATION  —  a.  In  General.  A  prior  publication  is  a  printed  book, 
newspaper,  or  document  of  public  character  disclosing  the  invention  intended  and 
actually  employed  for  the  purpose  of  conveying  information  to  the  public.76  The 
invention  must  be  intended  for  the  public  and  actually  published.77 

b.  Sufficiency  of  Publication.  Publication  in  a  book  of  general  circulation  is 
sufficient.78  But  mere  business  catalogues  or  circulars  intended  for  particular  per- 
sons engaged  in  the  trade  are  not  publications  within  the  meaning  of  the  law.79 
Otherwise,  however,  as  to  trade  magazines  found  in  libraries.80  A  published 
drawing  without  description  is  a  publication  of  the  invention  if  the  disclosure 
therein  is  sufficient  to  enable  one  skilled  in  the  art  to  make  and  use  it.81  A  pro- 
visional specification  published  in  England  amounts  to  publication.82  A  book  con- 
taining the  minutes  of  a  company,83  or  an  application  for  a  patent,84  is  not  a  publi- 


Insufficient  descriptions. —  A  patent  so  ob- 
scure in  its  terminology  that  two  conflicting 
theories  as  to  its  meaning  may  be  deduced 
therefrom  and  supported  by  equally  plausible 
arguments  is  too  indefinite  to  operate  as  an 
anticipation.  Cimiotti  Unhairing  Co.  v.  Corn- 
stock  Unhairing  Co.,  115  Fed.  524.  So  mere 
prophetical  suggestions  in  a  patent  as  to  the 
possibilities  of  an  invention,  when  no  one 
has  ever  tested  the  truth  of  the  suggestions, 
do  not  anticipate  a  subsequent  patent  for  the 
invention  suggested.  Westinghouse  Air- 
Brake  Co.  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  88  Fed. 
258,  81  C.  C.  A.  525. 

Mechanism. — Where  a  patent  is  for  mechan- 
ism by  which  a  particular  result  is  pro- 
duced, a  prior  patent,  in  order  to  anticipate 
it,  must  contain  more  than  -a  mere  state- 
ment that  the  result  may  be  accomplished. 
It  must  contain  a  description  of  the  me- 
chanism by  which  it  is  accomplished.  Graham 
v.  Gammon,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,668,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  7,  7  Biss.  490. 

72.  Bowers  v.  San  Francisco  Bridge  Co.,  91 
Fed.   381. 

73.  In  re  Millet,  18  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  186; 
Saunders   v.   Allen,   60  Fed.   610,  9   C.   C.  A. 
157.      Compare   Battin  v.  Taggert,    17   How. 
(U.    S.)    74,    15   L.   ed.    37;    Vermont   Farm 

Mach.  Co.  v.  Marble,  19  Fed.  307;  Graham  v. 
McCormick,  11  Fed.  859,  10  Biss.  39,  all 
holding  that  an  inventor  is  not  barred  from 
obtaining  a  patent  because  his  invention  is 
described,  although  not  claimed,  in  a  prior 
patent  to  himself. 

74.  In  re  Millett,    18   App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
186;    Mahn   v.    Harwood,    112   U.   S.    354,    5 
S.    Ct.    174,    6    S.    Ct.    451,    28    L.    ed.    665; 
Miller    v.   Bridgeport   Brass    Co.,    104   U.    S. 
350,  26  L.  ed.   783. 

75.  In  re  Millett,   18  App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
186. 


76.  Britton  v.  White  Mfg.  Co.,  61  Fed.  93. 

77.  Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,660,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  456,  1  Off. 
Gaz.  466,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)   368. 

78.  Lang  v.  Gisborne,  31  Beav.  133,  8  Jur. 
N.  S.  736,  31  L.  J.   Ch.  769,  6   L.  T.  Rep. 
N.   S.  771,   10  Wkly.  Rep.   368,  54  Eng.  Re- 
print  1088;    Stead  v.   Williams,   8   Jur.   930, 
13  L.  J.  C.  P.  218,  7  M.  &  G.  818,  8  Scott 
N.  R.   440,  49  E.  C.  L.   818. 

79.  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.    (U.  S.) 
516,    20   L.   ed.    33;    Britton    v.   White    Mfg. 
Co.,  61   Fed.  93;   New  Process  Fermentation 
Co.  v.  Koch,  21  Fed.  580;  Judson  v.  Cope,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  615;  Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.,  20 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,660,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  456, 
1  Off.  Gaz.  466,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)   368;  Parsons 
v.  Colgate,  24  Off.  Gaz.  203;  Atterbury's  Ap- 
peal, 9  Off.  Gaz.  640. 

80.  Truman  v.  Carvill  Mfg.   Co.,  87   Fed. 
470. 

81.  In  re  Millett,    18   App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
186;   Wright  v.  Yuengling,   155  U.  S.  47,   15 
S.  Ct.  1,  39  L.  ed.  64;  Britton  v.  White  Mfg. 
Co.,  61   Fed.  93;   Webb  v.  Quintard,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,324,  9  Blatchf.  352,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  276,  1  Off.  Gaz.  525.     But  see  Judson  v. 
Cope,   14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1 
Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    615;    Reeves    v.    Keystone 
Bridge  Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,660,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  456,  1  Off.  Gaz.  466,  9  Phila.   (Pa.) 
368. 

82.  Cohn  v.  U.  S.  Corset  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
2,969,    1    Ban  &   A.    340,    12   Blatchf.   225,   6 
Off.  Gaz.   259    [affirmed  in  93  U.   S.  366,  23 
L.  ed.  907]. 

83.  Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,941,   1   Robb  Pat.   Cas.   466,   4  Wash.  538 
[affirmed  in  2  Pet.  1,  7  L.  ed.  327]. 

84.  Northwestern  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  0. 
Philadelphia  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.,   18  Fed. 

[III.  C,  3,  b] 


838     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


cation.  So  a  single  copy  of  a  book  published  in  a  foreign  country  not  entered 
in  the  list  of  books  contained  in  a  library  is  not  a  publication.85  Copies  of  foreign 
patents  in  the  patent  office  or  public  libraries  accessible  to  all  amount  to  sufficient 
publication.86 

e.  Sufficiency  of  Description.  The  publication  must  describe  the  invention  so 
fully  as  to  enable  one  skilled  in  the  art  to  which  it  belongs  or  pertains  to  construct 
or  use  it.87 

4.  PRIOR  KNOWLEDGE  AND  USE  —  a.  Sufficiency  of  Knowledge.  Anticipating 
knowledge  must  be  of  the  complete  operative  invention  such  as  will  enable  those 
skilled  in  the  art  without  further  instructions  to  make  and  use  it.88 

b.  Mental  Idea  Insufficient.      Anticipating  knowledge  includes  not  the  mere 
mental  conception  that  the  thing  can  be  done,89  and  of  the  means  for  doing  it, 
but  the  certainty  of  information  derived  from  a  practical  demonstration.90     Mere 
theories  are  insufficient.91 

c.  Necessity  FOP  Perfected  Invention.     To  constitute  an  anticipation  the  inven- 
tion must  have  been  in  a  form  adapted  and  intended  for  immediate  practical  use.92 
An  inoperative  device  will  not  anticipate,93 


Cas.  No.  10,337,  1  Ban.  &  A.  177,  6  Off.  Gaz. 
34,  10  Phila.    (Pa.)   227. 

85.  Plimpton  v.  Spiller,  6  Ch.  D.  412,  47 
L.   J.    Ch.   211,   37  L.   T.   Rep,  N.   S.   56,  26 
Wkly.    Rep.    285. 

86.  Harris  v.  Rothwell,  35  Ch.  D.  416,  56 
L.  J.   Ch.  459,   56  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  552,  35 
Wkly.  Rep.  581;    Plimpton  v.   Spiller,  6  Ch. 
D.  412,  47  L.  J.  Ch.  211,  37  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
56,  26  Wkly.  Rep.  285;   British  Tanning  Co. 
v.   Groth,  60   L.   J.   Ch.   235,   64  L.   T.   Rep. 
N.  S.  21. 

87.  Driven  Well    Cases,    122  U.   S.   40,   7 
S.    Ct.    1073,    30    L.    ed.    1064;    Seymour    v. 
Osborne,  11  Wall.   (U.  S.)   516,  20  L.  ed.  33; 
Electric   Smelting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pittsburg  Re- 
duction Co.,   125  Fed,  926,  60  C.  C.  A.  636; 
Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Millheim  Electric  Tel. 
Co.,   88   Fed.   505;   Am  Ende  v.  Seabury,   36 
Fed.   593    [affirmed  in   152  U.   S.   581,   14  S. 
Ct.  683,  38  L.  ed.  553] ;  Hood  v.  Boston  Car- 
Spring  Co.,  21  Fed.  67;  Nathan  v.  New  York 
El.  R.  Co.,  2  Fed.  225;  Coleman  v.  Liesor,  6 
Fed.    Cas.   No.    2,984;    Colgate    v.   Gold,   etc., 
Tel.  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,991,  4  Ban,  &  A. 
415,  16  Blatchf.  503,  16  Off.  Gaz.  583;  Hays 
v.   Sulsor,    11   Fed.   Cas.   No.   6,271,    1    Bond 
279,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  532;  McMillin  v.  Bar- 
clay, 1 6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,902,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
189,  4  Brewst.    (Pa.)    275;   Parker  v.  Stiles, 
18  Fed.   Cas.  No.   10,749,   1   Fish.  Pat.   Rep. 
319,    5    McLean    44;    Roberts    v.    Dickey,    20 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,899,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  532, 
1  Off.  Gaz.  4,  4  Brewst.   (Pa.)   260. 

88.  Seabury  v.  Am  Ende,  152  U.  S.  561,  14 
S,  Ct.  683,  38  L.  ed.  553 ;  Driven  Well  Cases, 
122  U.  S.  40,  7  S.  Ct.  1073,  30  L.  ed.  1064; 
Seymour  v.  Osborne,    11   Wall.    (U.   S.)    516, 

20  L.  ed.  33;  Hood  v.  Boston  Car-Spring  Co., 

21  Fed.  67;    Coleman  v.  Liesor,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,984;   Hays  v.  Sulsor,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,271,    1   Bond   279,    1    Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   532; 
Parker  v.  Stiles,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,749,  1 
Fish.   Pat.  Rep.  319,  5  McLean  44;    Roberts 
v.  Dickey,  20  Fed.   Cas.  No.   11,899,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  532,  1  Off.  Gaz.  4,  4  Brewst.   (Pa.) 
260.     And  see  supra,  III,  C,  1,  b. 

89.  Cobb  v.  Goebel,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  75. 

[Ill,  C,  3,  b] 


90.  Howe  v.  Underwood,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,775,     1     Fish.    Pat.    Cas.     160;     Sayles     v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.   Co.,  21   Fed.  Cas.  No.    12,- 
415,  3  Biss.  52,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  584.     And 
see  infra,  III,  C,  4,  d;  IV,  A,  4. 

91.  National  Co.  v.  Belcher,  71   Fed.  876, 
18  C.  C.  A.  375;   Cox  v.  Griggs,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,302,  1  Biss.  362,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  174; 
Judson  v.  Bradford,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,564, 
3   Ban.   &  A.   539,    16   Off.   Gaz.    171;    Park- 
hurst  v.  Kinsman,   18  Fed.   Cas.  No.   10,757, 
1  Blatchf.  488,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  161,  8  N.  Y. 
Leg.    Obs.    146;    Poppenhusen    v.    New   York 
Gutta   Percha   Comb   Co.,    19   Fed.    Cas.    No. 
11,283,    2    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    62;    Stephens    v. 
Felt,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No.    13,368a;    Teese    v. 
Phelps,  23  Fed.   Cas.  No.   13,819,  McAllister 
48;  Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthiesson,  24 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    14,399,    3    Cliff.    639,   2   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  600.    And  see  supra,  II,  A,  3. 

92.  Lindemeyr  i?.   Hoffman,    18   App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    1;  Coffin  v.  Ogden,  18  Wall.   (U.S.) 
120,  21  L.  ed.  821;  Buser  v.  Novelty  Tufting 
Mach.   Co.,    151    Fed.   478,   81    C.    C.    A.    16; 
Allis   v.  Buckstaff,    13   Fed.   879;    Putnam  v. 
Hollender,  6  Fed.  882,  19  Blatchf.  48;  Ex  p. 
Henry,  L,  R.  8  Ch.  167,  42  L.  J.  Ch.  363,  21 
Wkly.  Rep.  233;  Murray  v.  Clayton,  L.  R.  7 
Ch.  570,  20  Wkly.  Rep.  649;  Lewis  v.  Marl- 
ing,  10  B.  &  C.  22,  21  E.  C.  L.  20,  4  C.  & 
P.  52,  19  E.  C.  L.  403,  8  L.  J.  K.  B.  O.  S. 
46,   5   M.   &  R.    66;    Pneumatic    Tire    Co.   v. 
East  London  Rubber  Co.,  75  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
488. 

Mere  laboratory  experiments  will  not  an- 
ticipate. Electric  Smelting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pitts- 
burg  Reduction  Co.,  125  Fed.  926,  60  C.  C.  A. 
636. 

93.  Timolat     v.     Philadelphia     Pneumatic 
Tool    Co.,    131    Fed.    257;    Hale,    etc.,    Mfg. 
Co.   v.  Oneonta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,    129    Fed.  598; 
Farmers'  Mfg.   Co.  v.   Spruks  Mfg.   Co.,   127 
Fed.   691,   62   C.    C.   A.   447;    Kirchberger   v. 
American    Acetylene    Burner    Co.,    124    Fed. 
764   [affirmed  in   128  Fed.  599,   64  C.  C.  A. 
107] ;    Cimiotti    Unhairing    Co.   v.    American 
Unhairing  Mach.  Co.,  115  Fed.  498,  53  C.  C. 
A.    230. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     839 


d.  Necessity  For  Demonstration  of  Success.     Ordinarily  the  invention  must 
Lave  been  tested  and  found  satisf actor}7,94  although  some  devices  are  so  simple 
that  no  test  is  necessary  to  demonstrate  their  success.95     And  mere  mechanical 
defects   which   would  be  cured    by   the   ordinary   mechanic   will   not   prevent 
anticipation.96 

e.  Abandoned  or  Unsuccessful  Experiments.     Mere  unsuccessful  and  aban- 
doned experiments  do  not  constitute  anticipating  knowledge  or  use.97     To  justify 


94.  Dashiell  v.  Tasker,  21  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.) 
64;     Parker    v.    Hulme,     18    Fed.    Gas.    No. 
10,740,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  44;  Fefel  v.  Stocker, 
94  Off.  Gaz.  433;  Kelly  v.  Fynn,  92  Off.  Gaz. 
1237.     And  see  supra,  III,  C,  4,  b;  infra,  IV, 
A,  5. 

Process  must  have  been  actually  performed. 
Piper  v.  Brown,  19  Fed.  Gas.  No.  11,180,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  175,  Holmes  20  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200] ; 
Croskey  v.  Atterbury,  76  Off.  Gaz.  163. 

Commercial  use  is  not  necessary. —  Wyman 
v.  Donnelly,  21  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.)  81. 

95.  Lindemeyr   v.    Hoffman,    18   App.    Gas. 
<D.  C.)    1;  Mason  v.  Hepburn,  13  App.  Gas. 
(D.  C.)   86;   Coffin  v.  Ogden,  5  Fed.  Gas.  No. 

2,950,  7  Blatchf.  61,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  640 
[affirmed  in  18  Wall.  120,  21  L.  ed.  821]; 
Parker  r.  Ferguson,  18  Fed.  Gas.  No.  10,733, 
1  Blatchf.  407,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  260.  And 
see  infra,  IV,  A,  5,  a. 

96.  Brush  v.  Condit,  132  U.  S.  39,  10  S.  Ct. 
1,   33   L.    ed.    251;    Merrimac   Mattress   Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Feldman,  133  Fed.  64;  Patent  Button 
Co.  v.  Scovill  Mfg.  Co.,  92  Fed.  151;  Aiken  v. 
Dolan,  1  Fed.  Gas.  No.  110,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Gas. 
197;  Pitts  v.  Wemple,  19  Fed.  Gas.  No.  11,- 
194,  1  Biss.  87,  5  Fish.  Pat.,  Gas.  10;  Jenner 
17.   Dickinson,    117    Off.   Gaz.    600;    Gallagher 
v.    Hien,    115    Off.    Gaz.    1330;    Bechman    v. 
Wood,  89  Off.  Gaz.  2459;  Hem  v.  Buhaup,  81 
Off.     Gaz.     2088;      Bromley     Bros.     Carpet 
Factory  v.  Stewart,  61  Off.  Gaz.  1481. 

97.  Dashiell  v.  Tasker,  21  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.) 
64;  Tripler  v.  Linde,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  32; 
Traver    ?;.    Brown,    14    App.    Cas.     (D.    C.) 
34;  Glidden  v.  Noble,  5  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  480; 
Keystone    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Adams,    151    U.    S. 
139,   14  S.  Ct.  295,  38  L.  ed.  103;  Whiteley 
v.   Swayne,   7   Wall.    (U.   S.)    685,   19  L.  ed. 
199;    United    Shoe    Mach.   Co.   v.    Greenman, 
153    Fed.    283,    82    C.    C.    A.    581    [affirming 
145  Fed.  538] ;   Arrott  v.  Standard  Sanitary 
Mfg.  Co.,  131  Fed.  457   [affirmed  in  135  Fed. 
750,  68  C.  C.  A.  388] ;   General  Electric  Co. 
v.  Wise,  119  Fed.  922;   E.  Thomas,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Electric  Porcelain,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill  Fed.  923; 
Westinghouse    Electric,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Beacon 
Lamp  Co.,  95  Fed.  462;    Standard  Cartridge 
Co.  v.  Peters  Cartridge  Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23 
C.  C.  A.  367;   Gamewell  Fire- Alarm  Tel.  Co. 
U.  Municipal  Signal  Co.,  61  Fed.  948,   10  C. 
C.  A.  184;  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  Ameri- 
can Cushman  Tel.  Co.,  35  Fed.  734,  1  L.  R.  A. 
60;    International  Tooth-Crown.  Co.  v.  Rich- 
mond, 30  Fed.  775;  Hutchinson  v.  Everett,  26 
Fed.    531;    Hoyt    v.    Slocum,    26    Fed.    329; 
American  Bell  Tel.   Co.  v.  People's  Tel.   Co., 
25  Fed.  725    [affirmed  in  126  U.   S.   1,  8   S. 
Ct.    778,    31   L.    ed.   863];    Fay   v.  Allen,   24 
Fed.   804;    Phillips  v.   Carroll,  23  Fed.  249; 


Whittlesey  v.  Ames,  13  Fed.  893,  9  Biss.  225; 
Albright  v.  Celluloid  Harness  Trimming  Co., 
1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  147,  2  Ban  &  A.  629,  12  Off. 
Gaz.  227;  Allen  i?.  Hunter,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
225,  6  McLean  303;  Aultman  v.  Holley,  2 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  656,  11  Blatchf.  317,  6  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  534,  5  Off.  Gaz.  3;  Blake  v.  Raw- 
son,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No..  1,499,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
74,  Holmes  200,  3  Off.  Gaz.  122;  Gaboon  v. 
Ring,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,292,  1  Cliff.  592,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  379;  Gallahue  v.  Butterfield, 
9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,198,  10  Blatchf.  232,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  203,  2  Off.  Gaz.  645 ;  Gottfried 
v.  Phillip  Best  Brewing  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,633,  5  Ban.  &  A.  4,  17  Off.  Gaz.  675; 
Hayden  v.  Suffolk  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,261,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  86;  Hitchcock  v. 
Shoninger  Melodeon  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,537;  Hitchcock  v.  Tremaine,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,538,  8  Blatchf.  440,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
508;  Howe  v.  Underwood,  12  Fed,  Cas. 
No.  6,775,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  160;  La  Baw 
v.  Hawkins,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,960,  1  Ban. 
&  A.  428,  6  Off.  Gaz.  724;  Latta  v.  Shawk, 
14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,116,  1  Bond  259,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  465;  McCormick  v.  Howard,  15 
Fed.  Gas.  No.  8,719,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  238; 
Many  v.  Jagger,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,055,  1 
Blatchf.  372,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  222;  Many  v. 
Sizer,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,056,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  17;  Murphy  v.  Eastham,  17  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,949,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  306,  Holmes  113, 
2  Off.  Gaz.  61;  Parham  v.  American  Button- 
hole, etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,713, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  468 ;  Ransom  .v.  New  York, 
20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,573,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
252;  Roberts  v.  Dickey,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,899,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  532,  1  Off.  Gaz.  4,  4 
Brewst.  (Pa.)  260;  Singer  v.  Walmsley,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,900,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  558; 
Sloat  17.  Spring,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,94So; 
Smith  v.  Fay,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,045,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  446 ;  Smith  v.  Glendale  Elas- 
tic Fabrics  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,050,  1 
Ban.  &  A.  58,  Holmes  340,  5  Off.  Gaz.  429 
[affirmed  in  100  U.  S.  110]  ;  Swift  v.  Whisen, 
23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,700,  2  Bond  115,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  343 ;  Union  Paper  Bag  Co.  17.  Pultz, 
etc.,  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,392,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
403,  15  Blatchf.  160,  15  Off.  Gaz.  423; 
United  Nickel  Co.  v.  Anthes,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14.406,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  517,  Holmes  155,  1 
Off.  Gaz.  578;  Washburn  17.  Gould,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,214,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  206,  3 
Story  122;  Wayne  17.  Holmes,  29  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,303,  1  Bond  27,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  20; 
White  v.  Allsn,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,535,  2 
Cliff.  224,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  440;  Winans  17. 
Danforth,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,859;  Winans  V. 
New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,864,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1;  Woodman  v. 

[Ill,  C,  4,  e] 


840     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


a  court  in  overthrowing  a  patent  granted  for  what  appears  to  be  a  new  and  useful 
invention  or  improvement,  on  the  ground  that  the  device  has  been  anticipated  by 
another  and  earlier  invention,  the  court  should  be  well  satisfied  by  clear  and  credi- 
ble testimony  that  the  alleged  earlier  invention  actually  existed  ;  that  it  was  a 
perfected  device,  capable  of  practical  use,  and  that  it  was  embodied  in  distinct 
form,  and  carried  into  operation  as  a  complete  thing,  and  was  not  merely  an 
unperfected  or  abandoned  experiment.98 

f.  Models  and  Unpublished  Drawings.     Models  or  unpublished  drawings  or 
descriptions,  however  completely  they  may  disclose  the  invention,  do  not  antici- 
pate."    Illustrative  drawings  of  conceived  ideas  do  not  constitute  an  invention, 
and  unless  they  are  followed  up  by  a  seasonable  observance  of  the  requirements 
of  the  patent  laws  they  can  have  no  effect  upon  a  subsequently  granted  patent  to 
another.1 

g.  Accidental  Production  of  Invention.     Prior,  accidental  production  of  the 
same  thing  does  not  amount  to  anticipation,  where  the  operator  does  not  recognize 
or  understand  the  means  by  which  the  accidental  result  is  accomplished,2  and  no 
knowledge  of  them  or  of  the  method  of  employment  is  derived  from  it  by  any 
one.3     "  A  chance  operation  of  a  principle,  unrecognized  by  any  one  at  the  time> 
and  from  which  no  information  of  its  existence,  and  no  knowledge  of  a  method 
of  its  employment,  is  derived  by  any  one,  if  proved  to  have  occurred,  will  not  be 
sufficient  to  defeat  the  claim  of  him  who  first  discovers  the  principle,  and,  by 


Stimpson,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,979,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  98. 

Combinations  of  similar  elements  which 
could  not  be  successfully  used  to  produce  the 
effect  produced  by  the  patented  machine  do 
not  anticipate  the  patent.  Turrill  v.  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,270,  3  Biss 
66,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  330. 

A  single  experimental  use  of  an  apparatus, 
afterward  destroyed,  in  such  way  as  to  in- 
volve the  practice  of  a  certain  process,  does 
not  prevent  a  subsequent  original  inventor  or 
discoverer  of  the  same  process  from  having 
a  valid  patent  therefor.  Piper  v.  Brown,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,180,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  175, 
Holmes  20. 

Mere  failure,  to  use  invention  will  not  pre- 
vent anticipation.  McNish  v.  Everson,  2  Fed. 
899;  Sayles  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,414,  1  Biss.  468,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
523;  Shoup  v.  Henrici,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,- 
814,  2  Ban.  &  A.  249;  Waterman  v.  Thomson, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,260,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
461. 

Where  a  patent  has  been  granted  for  im- 
provements which,  after  a  full  and  fair  trial, 
resulted  in  unsuccessful  experiments,  and 
have  been  finally  abandoned,  if  any  other 
person  takes  up  the  subject  of  the  improve- 
ments and  is  successful  he  is  entitled  to  the 
merit  of  them  as  an  original  inventor. 
Whitely  v.  Swayne,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  685,  19 
L.  ed.  199. 

98.  Gottfried  v.  Phillip  Best  Brewing  Co., 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,633,  5   Ban.  &  A.  4,   17 
Off.  Gaz.  675. 

99.  Mason     v.     Hepburn,     13     App.     Cas. 
(D.  C.)    86;   Dolbear  v.  American  Tel.  Co., 
126   U.   S.   1,   8   S.   Ct.   778,   31   L.  ed.    863; 
American     Writing    Mach.    Co.    r.    Wagner 
Typewriter  Co.,   151    Fed.   576,   81   C.   C.   A. 
120     [affirming     138     Fed.     108] ;     Standard 
Cartridge    Co.    v.    Peters    Cartridge    Co.,    77 

[HI,  C,  4,  e] 


Fed.  630,  23  C.  C.  A.  367  [affirming  69  Fed. 
608] ;  Uhlmann  v.  Bartholomse,  etc.,  Brewing 
Co.,  41  Fed.  132;  Pennsylvania  Diamond 
Drill  Co.  v.  Simpson,  29  Fed.  288;  Detroit 
Lubricator  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Renchard,  9 
Fed.  293;  Judson  v.  Cope,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  615;  Cahoon  v.  Ring,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,292,  1  Cliff.  592,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
397;  Ellithorp  v.  Robertson,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,408,  4  Blatchf.  307,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  83; 
Reeves  t>.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,660,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  456,  1  Off.  Gaz. 
466;  Hunter  v.  Stikeman,  85  Off.  Gaz.  610; 
McCormick  v.  deal,  83  Off.  Gaz.  1514; 
Croskey  v.  Atterbury,  76  Off.  Gaz.  163; 
Porter  v.  Louden,  73  Off.  Gaz.  1551;  New 
Process  Fermentation  Co.  v.  Koch,  29  Off. 
Gaz.  535;  In  re  Atterbury,  9  Off.  Gaz.  640. 

1.  Detroit    Lubricator    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Ren- 
chard,  9  Fed,  293 ;  Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge 
Co.,   20   Fed.    Cas.  No.    11,660,   5   Fish.   Pat. 
Cas.  456,  1  Off.  Gaz.  466. 

2.  Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  102  U.  S.  707,  26 
L.  ed.   279;    Chisholm   v.   Johnson,    106    Fed. 
191 ;  German-American  Filter  Co.  v.  Erdrich, 
98  Fed.  300 ;  Tannage  Patent  Co.  v.  Donallan, 
93  Fed.  811;    Wickelman  v.  A.  B.   Dick,   88 
Fed.  264,  31  C.  C.  A.  530;  Taylor  Burner  Co. 
1?.  Diamond,  72   Fed.    182;    Pittsburg  Reduc- 
tion   Co.    v.    Cowles    Electric    Smelting,    etc., 
Co.,   55   Fed.   301;    Boyd  v.   Cherry,   50   Fed. 
279;    Andrews    v.   Carman,    1    Fed.   Cas.    No. 
371,   2   Ban.    &   A.   277,    13   Blatchf.   307,   9 
Off.    Gaz.    1011;    Colgate   v.   Western   Union 
Tel.  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,995,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
36,  15  Blatchf.  365,  14  Off.  Gaz.  943;  Pelton 
v.  Waters,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,  913,  1  Ban.  & 
A.  599,  7  Off.  Gaz.  425 ;  Ransom  v.  New  York, 
20   Fed.   Cas.   No.   11,573,    1    Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
252. 

3.  Wickelman  v.  A.  B.  Di.ck  Co.,  88  Fed. 
264,  31  C.  C.  A.  530. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     841 


putting  it  to  practical  and  intelligent  use,  first  makes  it  available  to  man."  4  It 
lias  been  held,  however,  that  to  constitute  anticipation  of  a  later  patent  it  is 
enough  that  such  a  construction  had  been  in  well-established  use,  whether  it 
originated  in  design  or  by  accident;5  and  an  invention  will  not  be  deemed  acci- 
dental because  all  the  advantages  thereof  were  not  understood  6  or  because  the 
new  form  of  result  had  not  been  before  contemplated.7  While  as  already  shown 
an  accidental  and  unnoted  use  does  not  amount  to  an  anticipation,  the  mere 
discovery  in  an  old  combination  of  a  new  property  however  beneficial  is  not 
paten  table.8 

h.  Lost  Art.  An  invention  which  was  never  made  public  and  which  has  been 
forgotten  will  not  anticipate.9  But  an  invention  merely  concealed  by  the  inventor 
is  not  a  lost  art.10 

i.  Combination  of  Old  Elements.11  The  fact  that  the  various  elements  of  a 
combination  are  old  will  not  anticipate  a  claim  to  the  combination.12  To  antici- 
pate a  combination  it  must  be  shown  that  the  same  or  equivalent  elements  have 
been  combined  in  substantially  the  same  way  to  produce  substantially  the  same 
result.13 


4.  Andrews    v.    Carman,    1    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
371,  2  Ban.  &  A.  277,  13  Blatchf.  307,  323, 
9    Off.    Gaz.    1011    [quoted   in   Wickelman  v. 
A.  B.  Dick  Co.,  88  Fed.  264,  31  C.  C.  A.  530]. 

5.  National  Harrow  Co.  v.  Quick,  74  Fed. 
236,  20  C.  C.  A.  410. 

6.  Merrimac  Mattress  Co.  v.  Feldman,  133 
Fed.  64;  Soehner  v.  Favorite  Stove,  etc.,  Co., 
84   Fed.    182,    28    C.    C.    A.    317;    Woodbury 
Patent  Planing  Mach.  Co.  t?.  Keith,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.    17,970,  4  Ban.  &  A.   100    [affirmed 
in  101  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed.  939]. 

7.  Ansonia    Brass,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Electrical 
Supply  Co.,  144  U.  S.   11,   12  S.  Ct.  601,  36 
L.  ed.  327  [affirming  32  Fed.  81,  35  F'ed.  68]. 

8.  National    Meter   Co.   v.   Neptune   Meter 
Co.,   122  Fed.  82    [affirmed  in   129  Fed.   124, 
63  C.  C.  A.  626]. 

9.  Gayler  v.  Wilder,  10  How.    (U.  S.)   477, 
13  L.  ed.  504;  Hall  v.  Bird,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,926,  6  Blatchf.  438,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  595; 
Taylor    v.    Wood,    23    Fed.    Cas.    No.    13,808, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  270,  12  Blatchf.  110,  8  Off.  Gaz. 
90. 

10.  Mason  v.  Hepburn,  13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
86. 

11.  Combination  or  aggregation  as  involv- 
ing invention  see  infra,  III,  E,  20,  21. 

New  combinations  as  showing  novelty  of 
device  see  supra,  III,  B,  10. 

12.  Allen  v.  Grimes,  89  Fed.  869;  Western 
Electric  Co.  v.  Millheim  Electric  Tel.  Co.,  88 
Fed.  505 ;  Railway  Register  Mfg.  Co.  v.  North 
Hudson  County  R.  Co.,  26  Fed.  411 ;  Yale  Lock 
Mfg.  Co    v.  Norwich  Nat.  Bank,  6  Fed.  377, 
19   Blatchf.    123;    Blake   v.    Stafford,   3   Fed. 
Cas.  No.   1,504,  6  Blatchf.   195,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  294;    Booth  v.   Parks,   3   Fed.   Cas.   No. 

1,648,  1  Ban.  &  A.  225,  1  Flipp.  381  [affirmed 
in  102  U.  S.  96,  26  L.  ed.  54] ;  In  re  Bough- 
ton,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,696,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  278;  Carr  t\  Rice,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,440,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  198;  Child  v.  Boston 
etc.,  Iron  Works,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,675,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  606,  Holmes  303,  5  Off.  Gaz. 
61;  Christman  v.  Rumsey,  5  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,704,  4  Ban.  &  A.  506,  17  Blatchf.  148, 
17  Off.  Gaz.  903;  Crosby  v.  Lopouraille,  6 


Fed.  Cas,  No.  3,424,  Taney  374;  Emigh  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,448, 
1  Biss.  400,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  387;  Evans 
v.  Eaton,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559,  1  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  68;  Forbush  v.  Cook,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,931,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  668;  Forsyth  v. 
Clapp,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,949,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  528,  Holmes  528,  4  Off.  Gaz.  527;  Hailes 
v.  Van  Wormer,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,904,  7 
Blatchf.  443  [affirmed  in  20  Wall.  353,  22 
L.  ed.  241];  In  re  Halsey,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,963,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  459;  Kelleher  v. 
Darling,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,653,  3  Ban.  & 
A.  438,  4  Cliff.  424,  14  Off.  Gaz.  673;  Kero- 
sene Lamp  Heater  Co,  v.  Littell,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,724,  3  Ban.  &  A. -312,  13  Off.  Gaz.  1009; 
Munson  v.  Gilbert,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,934,  3  Ban.  &  A.  595,  18  Off. 
Gaz.  194;  Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,941,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  466,  2  Wash. 
538  [affirmed  in  2  Pet.  1,  7  L.  ed.  327]; 
Sands  v.  Wardwell,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,306, 
3  Cliff.  277;  Tatham  v.  LeRoy,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,761;  In  re  Wagner,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,038,  McArthur  Pat..  Cas.  510;  Willimantic 
Linen  Co.  v.  Clark  Thread  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,763,  4  Ban.  &  A.  133;  Winans  v. 
Schenectady,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,865,  2  Blatchf.  279.  And  see  infra,  III, 
E,  20,  b. 

A  combination  of  all  the  elements  but  one 
will  not  anticipate.  Rice  v.  Heald,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,752  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  104  U.  S.  737,  26  L.  ed.  910]  ;  Watson  v. 
Cunningham,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,280,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  528. 

13.  Hubbell  v.  U.  S.,  179  U.  S.  86,  21  S.  Ct. 
28,  45  L.  ed.  100;  Parks  v.  Booth,  102  U.  S. 
96,  26  L.  ed.  54;  Stilwell-Bierce,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Eufaula  Cotton  Oil  Co.,  117  Fed.  410,  54  C. 
C.  A.  584;  Brill  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  103 
Fed.  289;  Gormully,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stanley 
Cycle  Mfg.  Co.,  90  Fed.  279;  Packard  v. 
Lacing-Stud  Co.,  70  Fed.  66,  16  C.  C.  A.  639 ; 
American  Automaton  Weighing  Mach.  Co. 
v.  Blauvelt,  50  Fed.  213;  Ross  v.  Montana 
Union  R.  Co.  v.  45  Fed.  424;  Bell  v.  U.  S. 
Stamping  Co.,  19  Fed.  312;  Worswick  Mfg. 

[HI,  C,  4,  i] 


8±2     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


j.  Non-Analogous  Use.  The  fact  that  the  same  tiling  in  form  is  old  in  a  non- 
analogons  art  where  it  is  used  to  perform  different  functions  will  not  constitute 
an  anticipation  or  negative  novelty.14 

k.  Evidence  —  (i)  PRESUMPTIONS  AND  BURDEN  OF  PROOF.  A  patent  is 
prima  facie  evidence  that  the  patentee  was  the  original  and  first  inventor  of  the 
device  patented,15  and  whoever  controverts  or  denies  his  claim  in  this  respect  has 
the  burden  of  proof  upon  him  to  establish  the  contrary.16  This  presumption  of 
originality,  in  the  absence  of  the  application  for  the  patent,  extends  -back  only 
to  the  date  of  the  patent,17  and  in  no  case  does  it  extend  further  back  than  to  the 
time  of  the  filing  of  the  original  application.18  "Where  defendant  has  shown 
knowledge  and  use  of  the  invention  prior  to  the  patent,  the  burden  of  proving  a 
still  prior  invention  is  thrown  on  plaintiff.19 

(n)  ADMISSIBILITT —  (A)  In  General.     To  overcome  the  prima  fade  pre- 


Co.  v.  Steiger,  17  Fed.  250;  Clark  Patent 
Steam,  etc.,  Regulator  Co.  v.  Copeland,  5 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,866,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  221; 
Gottfried  v.  Phillip  Best  Brewing  Co.,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,633,  5  Ban.  &  A.  4,  17  Off.  Gaz. 
675;  Johnson  v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,410, 

2  Cliff.   637;   Latta  v.   Shawk,   14  Fed.   Cas. 
No.  8,116,  1  Bond  259,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465; 
Turrill  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,270,  3  Biss.  66,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  330; 
Watson   v.    Cunningham,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,280,  4  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  528. 

14.  In   re   Weiss,    21    App.    Cas.    (D.    C.) 
214;    National  Meter   Co.   v.   Neptune  Meter 
Co.,  122  Fed.  75   [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  127  Fed.  563];   Durfee  v.  Bawo,  118  Fed. 
853;    Moore   v.   Schaw,    118    Fed,   602;    Day- 
light  Prism   Co.    v.    Marcus   Prism   Co.,    110 
Fed.   980;   National  Hollow  Brake-Beam  Co. 
v.  Interchangeable  Brake-Beam  Co.,  106  Fed. 
693,  45   C.   C.  A.   544..  And  see  supra,  III, 
B,  8;  infra,  III,  E,  15. 

Illustration.— Panel  of  ceiling  not  antici- 
pated by  bottom  of  bird  cage  or  a  tea-tray. 
Kinnear,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Capital  Sheet-Metal  Co., 
81  Fed.  491. 

15.  Donoughe    v.    Hubbard,    27    Fed.    742; 
Green    v.    French.    11    Fed.    591;    Rogers    t?. 
Beecher,  3  Fed.  639;  Brodie  v.  Ophir  Silver 
Min.  Co.,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,919,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.   137,  5   Sawy.   608;    Crouch  v.   Speer,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,438,  1  Ban.  &  A.  145,  6  Off. 
Gaz.    187;    Doherty  v.   Haynes,   7    Fed.   Cas, 
No.   3,963,    1    Ban.   &  A.   289,   4   Cliff.   291; 
Goodyear   v.   Day,    10   Fed.   Cas.   No.    5,566; 
Hoffheins  v.  Brandt,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,575, 

3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  218;   Johnson  v.  Root,   13 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,410,  2  Cliff.  637;  Knight  v. 
Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    14    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
7,882,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1,  Taney  106;  Konold 
v.  Klein,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,925,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
226,  5  Reporter  427;  McMillin  v.  Barclay,  16 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,902,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189,  4 
Brewst.     (Pa.)     275;    Poppenhusen    v.    New 
York  Gutta  Percha  Comb  Co.,   19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,283,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  62;  Putnam  v. 
Yerrington,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,486,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  237,  9  Off.  Gaz.  689;  Rice  v.  Heald,  20 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,752;  Rollhaus  v.  McPherson, 

20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,026;  Sands  v.  Wardwell, 

21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,306,  3  Cliff.  277;  Serrell 
v.  Collins,  21   Fed.   Cas.  No.   12,672,   1   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  289;  Sloat  v.  Spring,  22  Fed.  Cas. 

[Ill,  C,  4,  j] 


No.  12,948a;  Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Mat- 
thiesson,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,399,  3  Cliff.  639, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  600;  Washburn  i\  Gould, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,214,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
206,  3  Story  122. 

The  extension  of  a  patent  resisted  on  the 
ground  of  want  of  novelty  strengthens  the 
presumption  that  the  patentee  was  the 
original  inventor.  Cook  v.  Ernest,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,155,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  396,  2  Off. 
Gaz.  89,  1  Woods  195. 

16.  Roberts    v.    Pittsburgh    Wire    Co.,    69 
Fed.  624   [affirmed  in  71   Fed.  706,  18  C.  C. 
A.  302] ;  Roberts  v.  H.  P.  Nail  Co.,  53  Fed. 
916;  Cohansey  Glass  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wharton,  2& 
Fed.   189;   Thayer  v.  .Spaulding,  27  Fed.  66; 
Duffy    v.    Reynolds,    24    Fed,    855;     Albany 
Steam  Trap  Co.  v.  Felthousen,  20  Fed.  633, 
22    Blatchf.    169;    Green  v.   French,    11    Fed. 
591;  Shirley  v.  Sanderson,  8  Fed.  905;  Brodie 
v.    Ophir    Silver   Min.    Co.,   4    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
1,919,  4  Fish.   Pat.  Cas.   137,   5   Sawy.  608; 
Crouch  v.    Speer,   6    Fed.    Cas.    No.   3,438,    1 
Ban.    &   A.    145,    6    Off.    Gaz.    187;    Fisk    v. 
Church,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,826,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  540,  1  Off.  Gaz.  634;  Hayden  v.  Suffolk 
Mfg.    Co.,    11    Fed.    Cas.    No.    6,261,    4   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  86   [affirmed  in  3  Wall.  315,  18  L. 
ed.  76]  ;  Hoffheins  v.  Brandt,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,575,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  218;  Howes  v.  Nute, 
12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,790,  4  Cliff.  173,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  263;  Taylor  v.  Wood,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,808,  1  Ban.  &  A.  270,  12  Blatchf.  110, 
8   Off,  Gaz.   90;    Wayne  v.  Holmes,   29   Fed. 
Cas.   No.    17,303,    1    Bond   27,    2    Fish.    Pat. 
Cas.  20. 

17.  Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthiesson, 
24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,399,  3  Cliff.  639,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  600;   Wing  v.  Richardson,  30  Fed. 
Cas.   No.    17,869,   2   Cliff.   449,   2    Fish.    Pat, 
Cas.  535. 

18.  Johnson  v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,410, 
2    Cliff.   637;    White    v.  Allen,   29    Fed.    Cas. 
No.   17,535,    2   Cliff.   224,   2   Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
440;   Wing  v.  Richardson,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,869,  2  Cliff.  449,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  535. 

19.  Webster  Loom  Co.  v.  Higgins,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,342,  4  Ban.  &  A.  88,  15  Blatchf. 
446,  16  Off.  Gaz.  675.     In  other  words,  when 
the  patentee  desires  to  show  that  his  inven- 
tion was  of  a  date  prior  to  his  original  appli- 
cation he  takes  the  burden  upon  himself,  and 
must  prove  by  competent  and  sufficient  evi- 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     843 


sumption  of  the  validity  of  a  patent,  evidence  is  admissible  to  prove  that  the 
device  was  previously  made  and  reduced  to  practice  by  another  in  this  country  ;  ^ 
that  it  had  been  previously  known  to,  and  used  by,  others  here  before  it  was 
invented  by  the  patentee;21  or  that  it  had  been  patented  or  described  in  some 
printed  publication  prior  to  the  supposed  invention  by  the  patentee.22  Evidence 
of  an  acknowledgment  that  the  patentee  was  the  original  inventor  is  also  admis- 
sible.23 In  rebuttal  of  evidence  to  show  anticipation,  it  is  competent,  as  bearing 
on  the  state  of  the  art,  to  introduce  the  testimony  of  persons  whose  business  and 
experience  were  adapted  to  bring  to  them  a  knowledge  of  all  improvements 
therein  to  the  effect  that  no  such  improvement  as  that  covered  by  the  patent  in 
suit  had  previously  come  to  their  knowledge.24  In  determining  whether  one 
invention  anticipates  another,  evidence  may  be,  and  in  a  difficult  case  ought  to  be, 
heard  concerning  the  construction  and  actual  operation  of  the  devices  respectively.25 
So  too  the  jury  may  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  the  prior  invention  was 
known  to  persons  who  experimented  to  produce  the  subsequent  invention  but 
failed  to  do  so.26 

(B)  Application  For  Patent.  Mere  applications  for  patents  cannot  be  con- 
sidered on  the.  question  of  novelty.  To  make  the  things  described  in  them 
available,  there  must  be  evidence  that  such  things  were  actually  constructed  in 
working  form.27  Rejected  specifications  and  drawings  may  be  received  in  evi- 


dence that  lie  made  the  invention  at  the 
period  suggested,  and  that  he  reduced  the 
same  to  practice  in  the  form  of  an  operative 
machine.  Johnson  v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
7,409,  2  Cliff.  108,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  291; 
Jones  v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,495, 
3  Cliff.  563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3  Off. 
Gaz.  630  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  91 
U.  S.  171,  23  L.  ed.  275] ;  Wing  v.  Richard- 
son, 30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,869,  2  Cliff.  449,  2 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  535., 

20.  Direct  evidence  of  reduction  to  practice 
and  use  necessary. —  The  reduction  to  practice 
and   use    of    inventions   claimed   to   be    prior 
to   the    patent   in   suit,    so    as   to   invalidate 
such   patent,   must  be   shown   by   direct  evi- 
dence   of    the    construction    and    use    of    the 
machine  or  device.     Howes  v.  McNeal,  4  Fed. 
151,    17    Blatchf.    396.      Nothing    from    the 
patent  office  can  be  admitted  in  evidence  of 
earlier  dates  than  the  patent.     All  such  evi- 
dence    would     be     hearsay     and     secondary. 
Howes  v.  McNeal,  supra. 

File  wrappers  of  patents  alleged  to  antici- 
pate are  not  competent  as  evidence  to  show 
the  reduction  to  practice  and  use  of  the  in- 
ventions therein  claimed  at  a  date  prior  to 
the  invention  of  the  patent  in  suit.  Howes 
v.  McNeal,  4  Fed.  151,  17  Blatchf.  396. 

21.  Evidence  of  prior  use  in  a  foreign  coun- 
try is  inadmissible  where  such  prior  use  is 
not  shown  in  a  patent  or  printed  publication. 
Hurlbut  v.   Schillinger,   130  U.   S.  456,  9   S. 
Ct.  584,  32  L.  ed.  1011. 

22.  The  court  must  first  construe  the  pat- 
ent offered  in  evidence,  and  if  by  its  true  con- 
struction it  has  a  tendency  to  support  the 
issue  for  which  it  is  offered,  it  is  admissible, 
but  if  it  has  no  such  tendency,  it  must  be 
excluded.      Cahoon  v.  Ring,  4  Fed.   Cas.  No, 
2,292,  1  Cliff.  592,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  397. 

A  certified  copy  of  a  patent  afterward  sur- 
rendered and  canceled  may  be  given  in  evi- 
dence to  show  that  a  device  subsequently  pat- 


ented is  not  original.  Delano  v.  Scott,  7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,753,  Gilp.  489,  1  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  700. 

A  certificate  of  the  commissioner  of  pat- 
ents of  a  copy  or  translaton  of  a  French 
volume  in  the  patent  office  is  inadmissible  to 
prove  the  existence  of  an  invention  prior 
to  the  patent  in  suit,  such  evidence  being 
merely  hearsay.  The  production  of  the  book 
itself  or  a  duly  sworn  and  proved  transla- 
tion is  the  only  way  its  contents  can  be 
shown.  Gay  lord  v.  Case,  5  Ohio  Dec.  (Rer 
print)  413,  5  Am.  L.  Rec.  494. 

A  drawing  exhibited  in  a  mere  trade  cir- 
cular, unaccompanied  by  any  evidence  that  it 
was  ever  actually  published,  or  intended  for 
general  use,  or  accessible  to  the  public,  is  not 
admissible  as  a  printed  publication  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  an  anticipation.  Brit- 
ton  v.  White  Mfg.  Co.,  61  Fed.  93.  But 
drawings  exhibited  for  the  purpose  of  show- 
ing anticipation  of  a  design  patent  are  not 
rendered  irrelevant  by  the  fact  that  they  are 
unaccompanied  by  a  written  description. 
This  objection  merely  affects  their  weight  as 
evidence  and  not  their  admissibility.  Brit- 
ton  v.  White  Mfg.  Co.,  supra. 

23.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559, 
Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  68. 

24.  Hitchcock  v.  Shoninger  Melodeon  Co., 
12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,537. 

25.  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  West- 
ern Electric  Co.,  72  Fed.  530,  19  C.  C.  A.  1. 

Evidence  of  impracticability  of  prior  inven- 
tion.—  Evidence  is  admissible  to  show  that 
the  device  set  forth  in  the  prior  patent  is 
inoperative,  impracticable,  and  worthless. 
Harwood  v.  Mill  River  Woolen  Mfg.  Co.,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,187,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  526. 

26.  Many  v.  Jagger,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,055, 
1  Blatchf.  372,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  222. 

27.  Barker  v.  Stowe,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  994, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  337,  15  Blatchf.  49,  14  Off.  Gaz. 
559. 

[Ill,  C,  4,  k,  (n),  (B)] 


844     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


dence,  however,  after  the  invention  is  perfected,  to  ascertain  the  date  of  the 
invention,  the  design  of  the  inventor,  and  the  principal  intended  functions  and 
mode  of  operation.^  And  it  lias  been  held  that  the  defense  of  prior  invention 
by,  and  patent  to,  a  third  person  may  be  met  by  producing  the  application  of,  and 
the  patent  to,  such  third  person,  with  his  accompanying  or  contemporaneous 
declarations.29 

(in)  WEIGHT  AND  SUFFICIENCY.  In  order  to  defeat  a  patent  on  the  ground 
of  want  of  novelty,  the  proof  of  prior  use  or  knowledge  must  be  clear  and  con- 
vincing,30 and  sufficient  to  establish  the  fact  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.31  Antici- 
pation may  be  established  by  testimony  entirely  from  recollection  of  the  existence 
and  use  of  a  prior  device,  when  the  witnesses  are  numerous,  disinterested,  and 
unim peached,32  but  not  where  such  testimony  is  indefinite  and  contradictory.33 
The  bare  recollection  of  one  witness  in  regard  to  the  peculiar  construction  of  a 
piece  of  machinery,  especially  if  the  structure  is  one  of  complex  character,  is  not 
ordinarily  sufficient  evidence  to  defeat  a  patent;34  but  it  may  be  sufficient  where 
the  invention  sought  to  be  anticipated  is  of  simple  character.85  Much  less  testi- 


A  rejected  application  for  a  patent  is  not 
evidence  that  the  thing  described  was  ever 
used  (Herring  v.  Nelson,  12  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
6,424,  3  Ban.  &  A.  55,  14  Blatchf.  293  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  107  U.  S.  640,  2 
S.  Ct.  819,  27  L.  ed.  601] ;  Howes  v.  McNeal, 
12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,789,  3  Ban.  &  A.  376,  15 
Blatchf.  103,  15  Off.  Gaz.  608)  ;  nor  is  such  a 
description  a  patent  or  a  publication  (Her- 
ring v.  Nelson,  supra;  Northwestern  Fire  Ex- 
tinguisher Co.  v.  Philadelphia  Fire  Extin- 
guisher Co.,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,337,  1  Ban. 
&  A.  177,  C  Off.  Gaz.  34,  10  Phila.  (Pa.)  227). 

28.  Northwestern  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  v. 
Philadelphia  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.,   18  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    10,337,    1    Ban.   &   A.    177,    6    Off. 
Gaz.  34,  10  Phila.    (Pa.)    227. 

29.  Hitchcock  v.  Shoninger  Melodeon  Co., 
12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,537. 

30.  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Beat  'Em 
All  Barbed-Wire   Co.,    143  U.   S.   275,   12   S. 
Ct.    443,    36   L.   ed.    154    [reversing   33    Fed. 
261];    Electrical   Accumulator   Co.   v.   Julien 
Electric  Co.,  38  Fed.  117;  Donoughe  v.  Hub- 
bard,  27   Fed.  742;   Thayer  v.  Spaulding,  27 
Fed.    66    (strong   and  convincing  if   not   ab- 
solutely conclusive  proof)  ;   Zane  v.  Peck,  9 
Fed.  101 ;  Woven-Wire  Mattress  Co.  v.  Wire- 
Web  Bed  Co.,  8  Fed.  87;  Rogers  v.  Beecher, 
3  Fed.  639;  Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Douglas,  16 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,948,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  330; 
Taylor    v.   Wood,    23    Fed.    Cas.    No.    13,808, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  270,  12  Blatchf.  110,  8  Off.  Gaz. 
90. 

31.  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Beat  'Em 
All   Barbed-Wire    Co.,   143  U.   S.   275,    12   S. 
Ct.   443,   36   L.   ed.    154    [reversing   33    Fed. 
261];  Coffin  v.  Ogden,  18  Wall.   (U.  S.)   120, 
21  L.  ed.  821;   Binns  v.  Zucker,  etc.,  Chem- 
ical Co.,  70  Fed.  711;  Electrical  Accumulator 
Co.  v.  Julien  Electric  Co.,  38  Fed.  117;   Co- 
hansey  Glass  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Wharton,  28  Fed. 
189;  Wetherell  v.  Keith,  27  Fed.  364;  Duffy 
v.    Reynolds,    24    Fed.    855;     Doubleday    v. 
Beatty,    11    Fed.   729;    Shirley  v.   Sanderson, 
8    Fed.    905;    Washburn,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.    v. 
Haish,  4  Fed.  900,   10  Biss.  65;   Campbell  v. 
James,  4   Fed.   Cas.  No.  2,361,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
456,  17  Blatchf.  42,  18  Off.  Gaz.  979,  8  Re- 
fill, C,  4,  k,  (II),  (B)] 


porter  455;  Hawes  v.  Antisdel,  11  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,234,  2  Ban.  &  A.  10,  8  Off.  Gaz.  685; 
Konold  v.  Klein,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,925, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  226,  5  Reporter  427;  Tread- 
well  v.  Bladen,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,154, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  531,  4  Wash.  703,  holding 
that  proof  of  an  article  which  might  have 
been  made  by  a  machine  similar  to  that  for 
which  plaintiff  afterward  obtained  a  patent 
is  not  sufficient  to  invalidate  the  patent. 

Evidence  held  sufficient  to  show  prior  knowl- 
edge and  use. —  Simmond  v.  Morrison,  44  Fed. 
757;  Gibson  v.  Scribner,  22  Fed.  840; 
Doubleday  v.  Beatty,  11  Fed.  729;  Parker 
17.  Ferguson,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,733,  1 
Blatchf.  407,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  260. 

Evidence  held  insufficient  to  show  prior 
knowledge  or  use. —  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Haberman  Mfg.  Co.,  55  Fed.  292,  5  C.  C.  A. 
Ill  [affirming  53  Fed.  375];  Edison  Electric 
Light  Co.  v.  Beacon  Vacuum  Pump,  etc., 
Co.,  54  Fed.  678;  Smith  v.  Davis,  34  Fed. 
783;  Wetherell  v.  Keith,  27  Fed.  364;  Yale 
Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Berkshire  Nat.  Bank,  26 
Fed.  104. 

Where  the  proof  of  prior  knowledge  or  use 
is  contradictory,  mere  preponderance  is  not 
sufficient  to  invalidate  the  patent.  The  pre- 
ponderance must  be  such  as  to  remove  all 
reasonable  doubt.  Hawes  v.  Antisdel,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,234,  2  Ban.  &  A.  10,  8  Off. 
Gaz.  685. 

32.  American  Roll-Paper  Co.  r.  Weston,  59 
Fed.  147,  8  C.  C.  A.  56. 

33.  Untermeyer  r.  Freund,  58  Fed.  205,  7 
C.   C.  A.   183;    Shirley  v.   Sanderson,   8   Fed. 
905;    Hawes   v.   Antisdel,    11    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
6,234,  2  Ban.  &  A.  10,  8  Off.  Gaz.  685. 

34.  Mack  v.  Spencer  Optical  Mfg.  Co.,  52 
Fed.     819;     Electrical    Accumulator    Co.    v. 
Julien  Electric   Co.,  38   Fed.    117;    Smith   t;. 
Davis,  34  Fed.  783 ;  Woven-Wire  Mattress  Co. 
r.  Wire- Web  Bed  Co.,   8   Fed.   87;    Blake  v. 
Eagle  Works  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,494, 
3  Biss.  77,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  591 ;   Blake  v. 
Rawson,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,499,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  74,  Holmes  200,  3  Off.  Gaz.  122. 

35.  Lee  r.  Upson,  etc.,  Co.,  43   Fed.  670; 
Riley  v.  Daniels,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,837. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     845 


mony  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  a  very  simple  invention  had  been  anticipated  than 
is  necessary  to  prove  the  anticipation  of  a  complex  machine.36 

D.  Utility87 —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  To  warrant  the  allowance  of  a  patent  it  must 
be  capable  of  some  beneficial  use,  in  contradistinction  to  what  is  pernicious, 
frivolous,  or  worthless.38  An  invention  will  be  deemed  useful  when  it  will  operate 
to  perform  the  functions  and  secure  the  result  intended,  and  its  use  is  not  con- 
trary to  public  health  or  morals.39  While  utility  is  essential,  any  utility,  however 
slight,  will  be  sufficient.40  It  is  not  essential  that  the  invention  should  be  the  best 


36.  National  Casket  Co.,  v.  Stolts,  157  Fed. 
392;    Lee   v.   Upson,   etc.,   Co.,   43   Fed.    670; 
Riley  v.    Daniels,   20   F<ed.    Cas.    No.    11,837. 

37.  Collusiveness  and  effect  of  decision  of 
patent  office  see  infra,  V,  C,  15. 

38.  Dickinson    v.    Hall,    14    Pick.    (Mass.) 
217,  25  Am.  Dec.  390;  Adams  v.  Loft,  1  Fed. 
Cas.   No.   61,   4   Ban.   &   A.   495,   8   Reporter 
612;  Bedford  v.  Hunt,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,217, 

1  Mason   302,   1    Robb '  Pat.  Cas.    148;    Cook 
v.  Ernest,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,155,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  396,   1  Woods  195,  2  Off.  Gaz.  89;  Cox 
v.  Griggs,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,302,  1  Biss.  362, 

2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   174;   Hoffheins  v.  Brandt, 
12    Fed.   Cas.    No.    6,575,    3    Fish.    Pat.    Cas. 
218;    Jones   v.   Wetherill,    13    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
7,508,   McArthur   Pat.    Cas.    409;    Kneass   v. 
Schuylkill   Bank,   14   Fed.   Cas.  No.  7,875,   I 
Robb   Pat.   Cas.   303,   4  Wash.   9;    Lowell   v. 
Lewis,    15    Fed.    Cas.    No.    8,568,    1    Mason 
182,   1   Robb   Pat.   Cas.    131;    Page  v.  Ferry, 
18   Fed.    Cas.   No.    10,662,    1   Fish.  Pat,  Cas. 
298;    Parker    v.    Stiles,    18    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
10,749,   Fish.   Pat.   Rep.    319,   5  McLean   44; 
Roemer  v.  Logowitz,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,996; 
In  re  Smith,   22   Fed.   Cas.  No.   12,982,   Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  255;   Thompson  v.  Haight, 
23   Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,957;   Westlake  v.  Cart- 
ter,   29   Fed.   Cas.   No.    17,451,   6    Fish.   Pat. 
Cas.  519,  4  Off.  Gaz.  636;   Whitney  v,  Em- 
mett,  29   Fed.   Cas.  No.   17,585,   Baldw.  303, 

1  Robb  Pat.   Cas.  567;   Wintermute  v.  Red- 
ington,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.    239;    Crompton    17.    Belknap    Mills,    30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,285,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536. 

39.  Must  have  practical  utility.     Smith  v. 
Nichols,    21    Wall.    (U.    S.)     112,    22    L.    ed. 
566. 

Designs. — In  designs  utility  relates  to  orna- 
mental appearance.  Smith  v.  Whitman  Sad- 
dle Co.,  148  U.  S.  674,  13  S.  Ct.  768,  37  L. 
ed.  606;  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Triumph  Electric  Co.,  97  Fed.  99,  38  C.  C. 
A.  65;  Rowe  v.  Blodgett,  etc.,  Co.,  98  Off. 
Gaz.  1286.  And  see  Simpson  v.  Davis,  12 
Fed.  144,  20  Blatchf.  413. 

An  inoperative  device  is  not  useful.  Thom- 
son-Houston Electric  Co.  v.  Lorain  Steel  Co., 
103  Fed.  641 ;  Torrant  v.  Duluth  Lumber 
Co.,  30  Fed.  830;  Brown  v.  Whittemore,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,033,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  524, 

2  Off.  Gaz.  248;  In  re  Cushman,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,513,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  569. 

Artificial  honey  is  useful  and  not  a  fraud. 
In  re  Corbin,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,224,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  521. 

Devices  for  amusement  are  useful  and  pat- 
entable.  Boynton  Co.  v.  Morris  Chute  Co., 
82  Fed.  440. 


Spotting  tobacco  leaves  to  deceive  users  is 
not  a  useful  invention  and  the  patent  is- 
void.  Rickard  v.  Du  Bon,  103  Fed.  868,  43- 
C.  C.  A.  360. 

Devices  used  for  gambling. —  Where  a  pat- 
ented device  can  be  used  only  for  gambling 
purposes,  the  patent  is  void  for  want  of 
utility  ( Schultze  v.  Holtz,  82  Fed.  448 )  ; 
and  the  same  has  been  held  to  be  the  case 
in  regard  to  a  device  which  has  been  used 
only  for  gambling  purposes,  although  it  is 
possible  that  a  useful  application  may  be 
found  for  it  (Reliance  Novelty  Co.  v.  Dwor- 
zek,  80  Fed.  902;  National  Automatic  De- 
vice Co.  v.  Lloyd,  40  Fed.  89,  5  L.  R.  A. 
784).  But  see  Fuller  v.  Berger,  120  Fed.  274, 
56  C.  C.  A.  588,  65  L.  R.  A.  381,  holding 
that  a  patent  for  a  bogus  coin  detector  for 
coin-operated  vending  machines,  which  is 
adapted  to  be  used  with  any  coin-operated 
machine,  is  not  void  for  lack  of  utility  be- 
cause it  was  assigned  by  the  inventor  to  a 
manufacturer  of  gambling  machines  and  has 
been  used  solely  in  connection  with  such 
machines. 

Useful  by  itself. — It  need  not  be  necessarily 
useful  by  itself.  Wheeler  v.  Clipper  Mower,, 
etc.,  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,493,  10  Blatchf. 
181,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1,  2  Off.  Gaz.  442. 

In  England  utility  does  not  mean  either 
abstract  utility  or  comparative  or  competi- 
tive utility,  or  commercial  utility.  Wels- 
bach  Incandescent  Gas  Light  Co.  v.  New 
Incandescent  Gas  Lighting  Co.,  [1900]  1  Ch. 
843,  69  L.  J.  Ch.  343,  82  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
293,  48  Wkly.  Rep.  362  (Buckley,  J.)  ;  Ha- 
worth  -i?.  Hardcastle,  1  Bing.  N.  Cas.  182,  3 
L.  J.  C.  P.  311,  4  Moore  &  S.  720,  27  E.  C.  L. 
597. 

40.  Dowagiac  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Superior  Drill 
Co.,  115  Fed.  886,  53  C.  C.  A.  36;  Gibbs  v. 
Hoefner,  19  Fed.  323;  Chandler  v.  Ladd,  5 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,593,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
493 ;  Conover  v.  Roach,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,125, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  12 ;  Crouch  v.  Speer,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,438,  1  Ban.  &  A.  145,  6  Off.  Gaz. 
187;  Doherty  v.  Haynes,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,963,  1  Ban.  &  A.  289,  4  Cliff.  291,  6  Off. 
Gaz.  118;  Johnson  v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,411,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  351;  Tilghman  v. 
Werk,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,046,  1  .Bond  511, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  229;  Vance  v.  Campbell, 
28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,837,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
483. 

Limitation  of  rule. —  The  rule  that  when 
an  invention  is  useful  for  some  purpose  the 
degree  of  usefulness  is  not  a  subject  for  con- 
sideration is  applicable  only  when  the  valid- 
ity of  a  patent  already  issued  is  attacked 

[III,  D,  1] 


84:6     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


of  its  kind  or  incapable  of  improvement,41  or  that  it  should  accomplish  all  that 
the  inventor  claimed  for  it  ;42  and  it  is  of  no  consequence  whether  the  utility  of  an 
invention  be  general  or  limited  to  a  few  cases.43  Every  patent  as  to  utility 
depends  on  the  state  of  the  art  at  the  time  of  the  claim  made  or  patent  issued  ;44 
and  if  the  invention  was  useful  when  the  patent  was  granted,  the  patent  is  valid, 
and  the  fact  that  it  has  become  useless  since  by  the  discovery  of  some  other  method 
which  dispenses  with  it  gives  no  right  to  others  to  use  it.45 

2.  EVIDENCE  OF  UTILITY.  Extensive  use  is  evidence  of  utility ; 46  and  where  an 
invention  involves  reflection  and  experiments  to  bring  it  to  practical  maturity,  its 
evident  utility,  indicated  by  its  prompt  displacement  of  other  devices  and  exten- 
sive use,  strongly  attest  its  patentable  merit.47  While  the  issuance  of  a  patent  is 
not  conclusive  evidence  on  the  question  of  utility,48  it  is  prima  facie  evidence 
thereof.49  The  presumptions  of  the  law  are  in  favor  of  a  patent50  and  the  burden 
is  on  defendant  to  show  that  it  is  not  useful  in  any  degree.51  An  infringement  of 
an  invention  amounts  to  an  admission  of  utility52  because  use  implies  utility.  It 


in  a  court  of  law;  but  when  the  question 
is  as  to  the  issuance  of  a  patent  the  rule 
is  that  prescribed  by  the  statute  (Acts 
(1836),  §  7),  namely,  that  "the  Commis- 
sioner shall  deem  it  to  be  sufficiently  useful 
and  important."  In  re  Cushman,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,513,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  569. 

41.  Lamb  Knit  Goods  Co.  v.  Lamb  Glove, 
etc.,    Co.,    120    Fed.    267,   56    C.    C.   A.    547; 
Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Aluminum  Stopper 
Co.,  108  Fed.  845,  48  C.  C.  A.  72;  Westing- 
house  v.   Boyden  Power  Brake  Co.,   66   Fed. 
997;  Bedford  v.  Hunt,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,217, 

1  Mason  302,   1   Robb  Pat.  Cas.   148;   Blake 
v.    Smith,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No.    1,502;    Carr   v. 
Rice,    5    Fed.    Cas.    No.    2,440,    1    Fish.    Pat. 
Cas.  198 ;  Chandler  v.  Ladd,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,593,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    49-3;    Many    v. 
Jagger,    16   Fed.   Cas.   No.   9,055,    1    Blatchf. 
372,   1  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  222;   Mix  v.  Perkins, 
17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,677;   Parkhurst  v.  Kins- 
man,   18    Fed.    Cas.    No.    10,757,    1    Blatchf. 
488,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  161;  Wheeler  v.  Clip- 
per   Mower,    etc.,     Co.,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,493,  10  Blatchf.   181,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1, 

2  Off.  Gaz.  442;   Wilbur  v.  Beecher,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,634,  2  Blatchf.  132,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  401. 

42.  Eames  v.  Cook,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,239, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  146. 

43.  Bedford  v.  Hunt,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,217, 
1  Mason  302,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.   148. 

The  word  "  useful "  as  used  in  the  statutes 
does  not  prescribe  general  utility  as  the  test 
of  the  sufficiency  of  an  invention  to  support 
a  patent.  It  is  used  merely  in  contradis- 
tinction to  what  is  frivolous  or  mischievous 
to  the  public.  Wintermute  v.  Redington,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  239. 

44.  U.  S.,  etc.,  Salamander  Felting  Co.  i: 
Haven,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,788,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
164,    9    Oft".    Gaz.    253;    Wheeler   v.    Clipper 
Mower,   etc.,    Co.,   29    Fed.    Cas.   No.    17,493, 
10  Blatchf.    181,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1,  2  Off. 
Gaz.  442. 

45.  Poppenhusen  v.  New  York  Gutta  Percha 
Comb  Co.,    19  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,283,  2  Fish. 
Pat.   Cas.   62. 

46.  Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  53, 
1    Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   1;    Schaum  v.  Baker,  21 

[HI,  D,  1] 


Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,440.     And  see  In  re  Thurs- 
ton,  26  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)    315. 

Increased  salableness  shows  utility.     New- 
bury  v.  Fowler,  28  Fed.  454. 

47.  Lorillard   v.   McDowell,    15    Fed.    Cas. 
No.  8,510,  2  Ban.  &  A.  531,  11  Off.  Gaz.  640, 
13  Phila.    (Pa.)   461. 

48.  Bierce  v.   Stocking,    11    Gray    (Mass.) 
174. 

49.  Corvallis  Fruit  Co.  v.  Curran,  8  Fed. 
150,   7   Sawy.  270;   Miller,   etc.,  Mfg.   Co.  v. 
Du  Brul,   17  Fed.   Cas.  No.  9,597,  2  Ban.  & 
A.  618,  12  Off.  Gaz.  351;  Potter  v,  Holland, 
19   Fed.    Cas.   No.    11,330,   4  Blatchf.   238,    1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  382;   Rice  v.  Heald,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.    11,752    [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  104  U.  S.  737,  26  L.  ed.  910];   Rollhaus 
v.  McPherson,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,026. 

50.  Kirk  v.  Du  Bois,  33  Fed.  252 ;  Geier  v. 
Goetinger,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,299,  1  Ban.  & 
A.  553,  7  Off.  Gaz.  563. 

51.  Kirk  v.  Du  Bois,  33  Fed.  252;  Parker 
v.  Stiles,   18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,749,  5  McLean 
44,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  319;  Vance  v.  Campbell, 
28   Fed.   Cas.  No.    16,837,   1    Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
483. 

52.  International     Tooth     Crown     Co.     v. 
Hanks*  Dental  Assoc.,  Ill  Fed.  916  [affirmed 
in  122  Fed.  74,  58  C.  C.,  A.  180] ;  Goss  Print- 
ing-Press   Co.    v.    Scott,    108    Fed.  253,    47 
C.  C.  A.  302 ;  Niles  Tool  Works  v.  Betts  Mach. 
Co.,  27  Fed.  301;   Hancock  Inspirator  Co.  r. 
Jenks,  21  Fed.  911;  Foye  t>.  Nichols,  13  Fed. 
125,    8    Sawy.   201;    Tyler   v.    Crane,    7    Fed. 
775;    Coleman   v.    Liesor,    5    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
2,984;    Hays    v.    Sulsor,    11    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
6,271,   1   Bond  279,    1    Fish.   Pat.    Cas.   532; 
Simpson  i\  Mad  River  R.  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   12,885,   6  McLean  603;    Smith  v.  Glen- 
dale   Elastic   Fabrics   Co.,   22    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
13,050,   1   Ban.  &  A.  58,  Holmes  340,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  429;    Smith  v.  Prior,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,095,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  469,  2  Sawy.  461, 
4  Off.  Gaz.  633;   Turrill  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  24   Fed.  Cas.  No.   14,270,  3  Biss.  66,  3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   330;   Vance  v.  Campbell,  28 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,837,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  483: 
Whitney  r.  Mowry,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,594, 
4    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    207    [reversed    on    other 
grounds  in  14  Wall.  620,  20  L.  ed.  860]. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     847 


is  fair  to  presume  that  the  person  using  an  invention  would  not  do  so  if  he  thought 
it  of  no  utility,53  and  he  is  estopped  to  deny  that  it  possesses  utility.54 

E.  Invention  —  1.  NECESSITY.  The  subject-matter  of  patents  must  be  of  such 
a  character  as  to  have  called  for  an  exercise  of  the  inventive  or  creative  faculties 
of  the  mind K  as  distinguished  from  the  mere  exercise  of  the  knowledge  and 
judgment  expected  of  those  skilled  in  the  particular  art,56  although  the  right  to  a 
patent  does  not  depend  upon  the  quantity  of  thought,  ingenuity,  skill,  labor,  or 
experiment  which  was  bestowed  upon  the  production.57 

2.  NATURE.  While  attempts  have  been  made  to  define  invention,58  the  courts 
arid  text  writers  have  found  it  impossible  to  so  define  it  as  to  furnish  a  test  for 
determining  whether  a  particular  act  or  discovery  called  for  an  exercise  of  the 
inventive  faculties.59  It  is  a  matter  resting  in  judgment  and  therefore  no  fixed 
rule  for  its  determination  is  possible.  Certain  controlling  principles  are,  however, 
settled  and  assist  in  reaching  the  proper  conclusion  in  particular  cases.  Thus  it 
is  declared  that  an  act  of  invention  is  primarily  mental  and  involves  the  conception 
or  mental  construction  of  a  means  not  previously  known  for  accomplishing  a  use- 
ful result.60  It  is  not  the  mere  adaptation  of  old  means  by  common  reasoning, 


The  fact  that  the  patented  article  has 
superseded  all  others  before  in  use,  and  that 
the  party  charged  with  infringing  has 
adopted  it  in  the  place  of  those  before  made 
and  sold  by  him,  constitutes  strong  evidence 
of  usefulness.  Smith  v.  Prior,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,095,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  469,  2  Sawy. 
461,  4  Off.  Gaz.  633. 

53.  Coleman   v.   Liesor,    6    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
2,984. 

54.  Coleman   v.    Liesor,    6    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
2,984;    Hays    v.    Sulsor,    11    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
6,271,    1    Bond   279,    1    Fish.   Pat.    Cas.   532; 
Vance  v.  Campbell,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,837, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  483. 

55.  In    re    Schraubstadter,    26    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    331;  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Green- 
leaf,  117  U.  S.  554,  6  S.  Ct.  846,  29  L.  ed, 
952;    Thompson  v.   Boisselier,    114   U.   S.    1, 
5  S.  Ct.  1042,  29  L.  ed.  76;  Enterprise  Mfg. 
Co.    v.    Sargent,    28    Fed.    185;    Patterson   v. 
Gaslight,   etc.,   Co.,   2    Ch.   D.   812,   45   L.   J. 
Ch.  843,  35   L.  T.  Rep.   N.   S.   11;    Pirrie  v. 
York    St.    Flax    Spinning   Co.,    [1894]    1    lr. 
417;   Nicoll  v.   Swears,  69  L.   T.  Rep.  N.   S. 
110;    Kemp    v.    Chown,    7    Can.    Exch.    306; 
Yates  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  2  Ont.  App. 
226;    Waterous    v.   Bishop,    20    U.    C.    C.    P. 
29. 

If  there  is  an  invention  to  any  extent  it  is 
sufficient.  Teese  v.  Phelps,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,819,  McAllister  48. 

56.  Pearce   v.  Mulford,   102  U.   S.   112,  26 
L.  ed.   93;    Muller  v.   Ellison,   27    Fed.   456; 
Arnold  v.  Pettee,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  56  Ib. 

New  result  indicates  invention.  Canning- 
ton  v.  Nuttall,  L.  R.  5  H.  L.  205,  40  L.  J. 
Ch.  739;  Curtis  v.  Platt,  L.  R.  1  H.  L.  337, 
35  L.  J.  Ch.  852;  Proctor  v.  Bennis,  36  Ch. 
D.  740,  57  L.  J.  Ch.  11,  57  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
662,  36  Wkly.  Rep.  456 ;  Thompson  v.  Moore, 
L.  R.  23  Ir.  599. 

57.  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Haish,   4 
Fed.  900,  10  Biss,  65 ;  Hoe  v.  Cottrell,  1  Fed. 
597,    17   Blatchf.   546;    Carr  v.  Rice,   5   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,440,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  198;  Clark 
Patent  Steam,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Copeland,  5  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,866,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  221;  Jones 


17.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,495,  3  Cliff. 
563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3  Off.  Gaz.  630 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  91  U.  S.  171, 
23  L.  ed.  275] ;  Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Douglas, 
16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,948,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
330;  Middleton  Tool  Co.  v.  Judd,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,536,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  141;  Potter 
v.  Holland,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,330,  .  4 
Blatchf.  238,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  382. 

58.  Invention  is  that  intuitive  faculty  of 
the    mind   put   forth    in    the    search   of    new 
results   or   new   methods   creating  what   had 
not  before  existed  or  bringing  to  light  what 
had  been  hidden  from  visions.       Hollister  v. 
Benedict,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.,    113    U.    S.    59,    5 
S.  Ct.  717,  28  L.  ed,  901.     The  finding  out, 
the    contriving,    the    creating    of    something 
which    did    not    exist,    and    was    not    known 
before,   and  which   can  be   made   useful   and 
advantageous    in    the    pursuits     of    life    or 
which  can  add  to  the  enjoyment  of  mankind. 
Leidersdorf  v.  Flint,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,219,  8 
Biss.  327,  6  Reporter  739. 

59.  McClain  v.  Ortmayer,  141  U.  S.  419,  12 
S.   Ct.  76,  35  L.  ed.   800;   Hanifen  v.  Armi- 
tage,   117   Fed.   845. 

Judicial  minds  may  reach  different  conclu- 
sions in  simple  cases.  Beer  v.  Waldridge,  100 
Fed.  465,  40  C.  C.  A.  496. 

60.  Eck  v.  Kutz,   132  Fed.  758;   Davis  v. 
Fredericks,    99    Fed.    69,    21    Blatchf.    556; 
Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  53,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.   1;   Conovcr  v.  Roach,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,125,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   12;   Ransom  v. 
New  York,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,573,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  252.    And  see  infra,  IV,  A,  10. 

To  constitute  invention  there  must  be  a 
definite  idea  of  the  complete  operative  means. 
—  Must  leave  no  essential  for  subsequent  con- 
ception. Wheaton  v.  Kendall,  85  Fed.  666. 

Mental  doubt. —  A  patentable  invention  is 
a  mental  result.  The  machine  process  or 
product  is  but  its  material  reflex  and  embodi- 
ment. Smith  I?.  Nichols,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
118,  22  L.  ed.  566. 

The  date  of  invention  is  the  date  of  the 
mental  conception.  Colt  v.  Massachusetts 
Arms  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,030,  1  Fish.  Pat. 

[Ill,  E,  2] 


84:8     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


but  is  the  construction  of  new  means  through  an  exercise  of  the  creative  faculties 
of  the  mind.61 

3.  INVENTION  AND  DISCOVERY  SYNONYMOUS.     There  is  no  distinction  in  patent  law 
between  invention  and  discovery.62     The  discovery  of  a  new  substance  or  element 
of  nature  or  a  new  principle  or  force  is  not  paten  table,  but  the  invention  or 
discovery  of  a  new  means  for  making  them  practically  useful  may  be.63 

4.  PRIOR  ART  CONSIDERED.     In  determining  whether  there  was  invention  in  a 
particular  case  everything  previously  known  in  the  art  through  patents,  publica- 
tions, or  use  must  be  taken  into   consideration,64  since  the  patentee  is  in  law 
presumed  to  have  known  of  everything  in  the  prior  art.65 

5.  NOVELTY  AND  SUPERIORITY  NOT  INVENTION.     A  party  has  not  necessarily  made 
an  invention  merely  because  he  has  done  what  no  one  had  done  before.     Mere 
novelty  and  utility  are  not  enough  to  sustain  a  patent,  since  there  must  also  be 
invention.66     He  must  do  something  which  the  ordinary  person  skilled  in  the  art 


Gas.   108.     See  also  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878) 
§  4920. 

61.  Matter  of  Gould,  1  MacArthur  (D.  C.) 
410;  Knapp  v.  Morss,  150  U.  S.  221,  14  S.  Ct. 
81,  37  L.  ed.  1059;  Dunbar  v.  Meyers,  94 
U.  S.  187,  24  L.  ed.  34;  Cleveland  Faucet  Co. 
v.  Vulcan  Brass  Co.,  72  Fed.  505;  Muller  v. 
Ellison,  27  Fed.  456;  Woodman  v.  Stimpson, 
30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,979,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  98 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  10  Wall.  117, 
19  L.  ed.  866]. 

Result. —  Invention  may  reside  more  in  the 
result  than  in  the  changes  of  structure. 
Stewart  v.  Mahony,  5  Fed.  302;  Treadwell  v. 
Fox,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,156.  Tapering  um- 
brella stick  is  patentable.  Rose  v.  Hirsch,  77 
Fed.  469,  23  C.  C.  A.  246  [reversing  71  Fed. 
881]. 

Placing  hand-holds  on  book-shelves  is  not 
invention.  Fenton  Metallic  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chase, 
73  Fed.  831. 

Mere  directions  how  to  use  a  tool  skilfully 
is  not  invention.  Walker  v.  Rawson,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,083,  4  Ban.  &  A.  128. 

Changing  sequence  of  operation  is  not  in- 
vention. Union  Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Waterbury,  70  Fed.  240,  17  C.  C.  A.  84 
[affirming  58  Fed.  566]. 

Putting  old  article  in  convenient  receptacle 
is  not  invention.  Hurd  v.  Snow,  35  Fed. 
423. 

Making  parts  match  or  fit  each  other  is  not 
invention.  Delvin  v.  Heise,  43  Fed.  795  [af- 
firmed in  159  U.  S.  251,  15  S.  Ct.  1038,  40 
L.  ed.  138]. 

Placing  sheets  of  fly  paper  face  to  face  is 
not  invention.  Andrews  v.  Thum,  67  Fed. 
911,  15  C.  C.  A.  67  [reversing  53  Fed.  84]. 

For  other  cases  illustrative  of  lack  of  in- 
vention see  Corbin  Cabinet  Lock  Co.  v.  Eagle 
Co.,  150  U.  S.  38,  14  S.  Ct.  28,  37  L.  ed.  989; 
Patent  Clothing  Co.  v.  Glover,  141  U.  S.  560, 
12  S.  Ct.  79,  35  L.  ed.  858;  McClain  v.  Ort- 
mayer,  141  U.  S.  419,  12  S.  Ct.  76,  35  L.  ed. 
800;  Clark  Pomace-Holder  Co.  v.  Ferguson, 
119  U.  S.  335,  7  S.  Ct.  382,  30  L.  ed.  406; 
Estey  v.  Burdett,  109  U.  S.  633,  3  S.  Ct.  531, 
27  L.  ed.  1058;  Office  Specialty  Mfg.  Co.  t?. 
Cooke,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Fed.  684;  New  York  v. 
American  Cable  R.  Co.,  70  Fed.  853,  17 
C.  C.  A.  467  [reversing  56  Fed.  149,  68  Fed. 
227];  Covert  v.  Travers  Co.,  70  Fed.  788; 

[HI.  E,  2] 


Philadelphia  Novelty  Mfg.  Co.  17.  Weeks,  61 
Fed.  405,  9  C.  C.  A.  555  [affirming  52  Fed. 
816]  ;  Butte  City  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Pacific  Cable 
R.  Co.,  60  Fed.  410,  9  C.  C.  A.  41  [reversing 
55  Fed.  760];  Green  v.  Lynn,  55  Fed.  516; 
National  Surface  Guard  Co.  v.  Merrill,  49 
Fed.  157,  1  C.  C.  A.  214;  Root  v.  Sontag,  47 
Fed.  309;  Davis  v.  Parkman,  45  Fed.  69£ 
[affirmed  in  71  Fed.  961,  18  C.  C.  A.  398] ; 
Williams  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Franklin,  41  Fed.  393; 
Puetz  v.  Bransford,  31  Fed.  458;  Celluloid 
Mfg.  Co.  f.  Zylonite  Novelty  Co.,  30  Fed, 

62.  In  re  Kemper,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,687, 
Cranch  Pat.  Dec.  89,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.   1. 

63.  See  supra,  II,  A,  5. 

64.  Busell    Trimmer    Co.    v.    Stevens,    137 
U.  S.  423,  11  S.  Ct.  150,  34  L.  ed.  719  [affirm- 
ing 28  Fed.  575]  ;  Foote  v.  Silsby,  9  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  4,919,  1  Blatchf.  542,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Rep, 
391. 

65.  Millett  v.  Allen,  27  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
70;   Derby  v.  Thompson,   146  U.   S.  476,   13 
S.  Ct.  181,  36  L.  ed.  1051;  Sewall  v.  Jones, 
91  U.  S.  171,  23  L.  ed.  275;  Evans  v.  Eaton, 
3  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  454,  4  L.  ed.  433;  Lettelier 
v.  Mann,  91  Fed.  909;  Fry  v.  Rookwood  Pot- 
tery Co.,  90  Fed.  494;  Stearns  v.  Russell,  85 
Fed.    218,    29    C.    C.    A.    121;    Crompton    t\. 
Knowles,   7   Fed.    199;    Dawson   v.   Follen,   7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,670,   1  Robb  Pat.   Cas.  9,  2 
Wash.   311;    Hovey  v.   Henry,    12    Fed.   Cas. 
No.  6,742;  Larabee  v.  Cortlan,   14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8,084,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  5,  Taney   180; 
Roemer  v.  Simon,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,997,  1 
Ban.   &   A.    138,   5   Off.   Gaz.   555;    Spain  v. 
Gamble,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,199,  McArthur 
Pat.  Cas.  358. 

66.  In  re   Cotton,   21   App.   Cas.    (D.    C.) 
17;    Yale   Lock   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Greenleaf,    117 
U.  S.  554,  6  S.  Ct.  846,  29  L.  ed.  952 ;  Thomp- 
son v.  Boisselier,  114  U.  S.  1,  5  S.  Ct.  1042, 
29  L.  ed.  76;  Milligan,  etc.,  Glue  Co.  v.  Up- 
ton, 97  U.  S.  3,  24  L.  ed.  985 ;  Wills  v.  Scran- 
ton  Cold  Storage  Co.,  147  Fed.  525  [affirmed 
in   153    Fed.    181]  ;    Dunbar  v.   Eastern  Ele- 
vating Co.,   81    Fed.   201,   26   C.   C.   A.   330; 
Baldwin  v.  Haynes,  28  Fed.  99 ;  May  v.  Fond 
du  Lac  County,   27   Fed.  691;   Perry  v.   Co- 
operative    Foundry    Co.,     12    Fed.    436,    20 
Blatchf.   498.     See  also  Wisner  v.  Grant,  T 
Fed.  485. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     849 


would  not  know  how  to  do  if  the  occasion  for  it  arose.67  He  has  not  made  an 
invention  merely  because  he  was  the  first  to  see  the  occasion  or  appreciate  the 
advisability  of  doing  the  thing,68  or  because  lie  has  done  it  better.  An  article  is 
not  paten  table  merely  because  it  is  better,  cheaper,  or  more  merchantable,69 
although  novelty  combined  with  superiority  may  show  invention.70 

6.  SIMPLICITY  DOES  NOT  NEGATIVE.     Simplicity  of  the  means  employed  does  not 
show  that  there  was  no  exercise  of  the  inventive  faculty  in  devising  it,71  but  on 
the  contrary  the  highest  order  of  inventive  genius  may  have  been  required  to  per- 
ceive that  such  simple  means  might  be  used  to  accomplish  the  desired  result.72 

7.  COMPLEXITY  NOT  PROOF  OF  INVENTION.     Mere  multiplicity  of  elements  in  the 
means  employed  does  not  show  that  invention  was  required  to  devise  it.73     Mul- 
tiplicity of  elements  may  go  on  indefinitely  without  making  invention.74 

8.  MECHANICAL  SKILL.     Where  the  ordinary  person  skilled  in  the  particular  art 
advised  of  the  end  to  be  accomplished  would  spontaneously  think  of  or  pro- 
duce the  means  for  accomplishing  it,  the  production  of  the  means  involves  mere 
mechanical  skill  and  not  invention.75     The  design  of  the  patent  laws  is  to  reward 


Utility  may  help  to  determine  the  question 
of  invention,  increased  efficiency  being  ac- 
cepted as  an  important  factor.  American 
Caramel  Co.  v.  Mills,  149  Fed.  743,  79  C.  C.  A. 
449. 

67.  Hollister    v.    Benedict,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co., 
113  U.  S.  59,  5   S.  Ct.  717,  28  L.  ed.  901; 
Dunbar   v.  Meyers,  94  U.   S.    187,  24  L.  ed. 
34;   Johnson  Co.  v.  Tidewatsr  Steel  Works, 
56  Fed.  43,  5  C.  C.  A.  412  [affirming  50  Fed. 
90];  Welling  v.  Crane,  14  Fed.  571;  Barry  v. 
Gugenheim,   2   Fed.   Gas.   No.    1,061,   5   Fish. 
Pat.  Gas.  452,  1  Off.  Gaz.  382 ;  Carter  v.  Mes- 
singer,    5    Fed.    Cas.    No.    2,478,    11    Blatchf. 
34 ;  Smith  v.  Frazer,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,048, 
5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  543,  2  Off.  Gaz.  175.     And 
see  supra,  III,  E,  1 ;  infra,,  III,  E,  8. 

Every  shadow  of  a  shade  of  an  idea  is 
not  patentable.  Atlantic  Works  v.  Brady, 
107  U.  S.  192,  2  S.  Ct.  225,  27  L.  ed.  438. 

68.  Hollister   v.    Benedict,   etc.,   Mfg.    Co., 
113  U.   S.  59,  5   S.  Ct.  717,  28   L.  ed.  901; 
Couse  v.  Johnson,  6  Fed.   Cas.  No.  3,288,  4 
Ban.  &  A.  501,  16  Off.  Gaz.  719. 

69.  Hotchkiss     v.     Greenwood,     11     How. 
(U.  S.)    248,  13  L.  ed.  683;  Greist  Mfg.  Co. 
v.   Parsons,    125   Fed.    116,   60   C.   C.   A.   34; 
Peters   v.   Union   Biscuit   Co.,    120    Fed.   679 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  125  Fed.  601, 
60  C.   C.  A.  337]  ;   Shoe  t?.  Gimbel,  96  Fed. 
96;    Birmingham   Cement  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Gates 
Iron  Works,  78  Fed.  350,  24  C.  C.  A.   132; 
Schwarzwaelder  v.  Detroit,  77  Fed.  886;  An- 
drews v.  Thum,  67  Fed.  911,  15  C.  C.  A.  67; 
Smith  v.  Nichols,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,084,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  61,  Holmes   172,  2  Off.  Gaz. 
649  [affirmed  in  21  Wall.  112,  22  L.  ed.  566]  ; 
Yearsley    t\    Brookfield,    30    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
18,131,  McArthur   Pat.   Cas.   193. 

70.  Ballard  v.  McCluskey,  58  Fed.  880. 

71.  United  Shirt,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Beattie,   149 
Fed.  736,  79  C.  C.  A.  442  [affirming  138  Fed. 
136]  ;   Johnson  v.   Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
75  Fed.  668;  Ross  v.  Montana  Union  R.  Co., 
45  Fed.  424;  McCormick  v.  Seymour,  15  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    8,726,    2    Blatchf.    240;    Many    v. 
Sizer,   16   Fed.   Cas.  No.  9,056,   1   Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.   17;   Teese  v.  Phelps,  23   Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,819,  McAllister  48;  Yates  v.  Great  West- 

[54] 


ern  R.  Co.,  24  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  495; 
Sumner  v.  Abell,  15  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  532; 
Powell  v.  Begley,  13  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  381. 

72.  Webster    Loom    Co.    v.    Higgins,    105 
U.  S.  580,  26  L.  ed.  1177;  Gindorff  v.  Deer- 
ing,  81  Fed.  952;  King  v.  Hammond,  14  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,797,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  488;  Ryan 
v.  Goodwin,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,186,  1  Robb- 
Pat.  Cas.  725,  3  Sumn.  514. 

73.  See  infra,  III,  E,  21,  b. 

74.  Richards    v.    Chase    Elevator   Co.,    158 
U.  S.  299,  15  S.  Ct.  831,  39  L.  ed.  991,  159- 
U.  S.  477,  16  S.  Ct.  53,  40  L.  ed.  225. 

75.  In  re  Volkmann,  28  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
441;  In  re  Hayes,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  393; 
In   re   Baker,    26    App.    Cas.     (D.    C.)    363; 
Black    Diamond    Coal-Min.    Co.    v.    Excelsior 
Coal  Co.,   156  U.  S.  611,   15   S.  Ct.  482,  39 
L.  ed.  553;  Giles  v.  Heysinger,  150  U.  S.  627, 
14    S.    Ct.    211,    37    L.    ed.    1204;    Knapp    i\ 
Morss,  150  U.  S.  221,  14  S.  Ct.  81,  37  L.  ed. 
1059;    French   v.   Carter,   137   U.   S.   239,   11 
S.  Ct.  90,  34  L.  ed.  664 ;  Shenfield  v.  Nasha- 
wannuck  Mfg.  Co.,  137  U.  S.  56,  11  S.  Ct.  5, 
34  L.  ed.  573 ;  Royer  v.  Roth,  132  U.  S.  201, 
10  S.  Ct.  58,  33  L.  ed.  322;   Aron  v.  Man- 
hattan R.  Co.,  132  U.  S.  84,  10  S.  Ct.  24,  33 
L.  ed.  272;  Clark  Pomace-Holder  Co.  v.  Fer- 
guson, 119  U.  S.  335,  7  S.  Ct.  382,  30  L.  ed. 
406;    Yale  Lock  Mfg.   Co.   v.   Greenleaf,   117 
U.  S.  554,  6  S.  Ct.  846,  29  L.  ed.  952 ;  Hollis- 
ter v.  Benedict,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  113  U.  S.  59, 
5  S.  Ct.  717,  28  L.  ed.  901;   Morris  v.  Mc- 
Millin,  112  U.  S.  244,  5  S.  Ct.  218,  28  L.  ed. 
702;    Phillips  v.   Detroit,    111    U.    S.    604,   4 
S.  Ct.  580,  28  L.  ed.  532;  Slawson  V.  Grand 
St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  U.  S.  649,  2  S.  Ct.  663, 
27  L.  ed.  576;  Atlantic  Works  v.  Brady,  107 
U.  S.  192,  2  S.  Ct.  225,  27  L.  ed.  438 ;  Dunbar 
v.  Meyers,  94  U.  S.  187,  24  L.  ed.  34 ;  Smyth 
Mfg.  "  Co.    1?.    Sheridan,    149    Fed.    208,    79 
C.  C.  A.  166;  Gates  Iron  Works  v.  Overland 
Gold  Min.  Co.,  147  Fed.  700,  78  C.  C.  A.  88 ; 
Felt,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mechanical  Accountant 
Co.,  129  Fed.  386;  U.  S.  Peg- Wood,  etc.,  Co. 
v.   B.    F.    Sturtevant   Co.,    125    Fed.   378,    60 
C.  C.  A.  244;  Stanley  Rule,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ohio 
Tool  Co.,  115  Fed.  813  [affirmed  in  125  Fed. 
947,  60  C.  C.  A.  185]  ;  National  Hollow  Brake- 

[HI,  E,  8] 


850     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


those  who  make  some  substantial  discovery  or  invention,  which  adds  to  our  knowl- 
edge and  makes  a  step  in  advance  in  the  useful  arts.  It  was  never  their  object 
to  grant  a  monopoly  for  every  trifling  device,  every  shadow  of  a  shade  of  an  idea, 
which  would  naturally  and  spontaneously  occur  to  awy  skilled  mechanic  or  opera- 
tor in  the  ordinary  progress  of  manufacture.76  Mere  mechanical  skill  can  never 
rise  to  the  sphere  of  invention.  The  latter  involves  higher  thought  and  brings 
into  activity  a  different  faculty.  Their  domains  are  distinct.  The  line  which 
separates  them  is  sometimes  difficult  to  trace ;  nevertheless,  in  the  eye  of  the  law, 
it  always  subsists.77 

9.  SUPERIOR  FINISH  OR  FORM  NOT  INVENTION.  It  is  well  settled  that  an  article  of 
manufacture  is  not  patentable  because  means  have  been  devised  for  making 
it  more  perfectly  than  before.78  It  must  be  new  in  itself  and  not  merely  in 


Beam  Co.  v.  Interchangeable  Brake-Beam  Co., 
99  Fed.  758;  Yale,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sargent, 
97  Fed.  106;  Davey  Pegging-Mach.  Co.  v. 
Prouty,  96  Fed.  336;  Ingraham  Co.  v.  E.  N. 
Welch  Mfg.  Co.,  92  Fed.  1019,  35  C.  C.  A. 
163;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Union 
R.  Co.,  87  Fed.  879;  Tiemann  v.  Kraatz,  85 
Fed.  437,  29  C.  C.  A.  257;  Gormully,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Western  Wheel  Works,  84  Fed. 
968,  28  C.  C.  A.  586 ;  National  Harrow  Co.  v. 
Wescott,  84  Fed.  671;  Buck  v.  Timony,  78 
Fed.  487;  National  Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Stecher  Lith.  Co.,  77  Fed.  828;  Clune  v. 
Madden,  77  Fed.  205;  Schreiber,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Grimm,  72  Fed.  671,  19  C.  C.  A.  67;  Union 
Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Waterbury,  70  Fed. 
240,  17  C.  C.  A.  84;  Smith  v.  Macbeth,  67 
Fed.  137,  14  C.  C.  A.  241;  Westinghouse  v. 
Edison  Electric  Light  Co.,  63  Fed.  588,  11 
C.  C.  A.  342;  Johnson  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania 
Steel  Co.,  62  Fed.  156 ;  Merritt  v.  Middleton, 
61  Fed.  680,  10  C.  C.  A.  10;  Northrop  v. 
Keighley,  48  Fed.  455 ;  Davis  v.  Parkman,  45 
Fed.  693  [affirmed  in  71  Fed.  961,  18  C.  C.  A. 
398] ;  Facer  v.  Midvale  Steel- Work  Co.,  38 
Fed.  231;  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Norwich 
Nat.  Bank,  6  Fed.  377,  19  Blatchf.  123; 
Perfection  Window  Cleaner  Co.  v.  Bosley,  2 
Fed.  574,  9  Biss.  385;  Belt  v.  Crittenden,  2 
Fed.  82,  1  McCrary  209 ;  Barry  v.  Gugenheim, 
2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,061,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  452, 
1  Off.  Gaz.  382;  Blandy  v.  Griffith,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,529,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  609;  Flood 
v.  Hicks,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,877,  2  Biss.  169,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  156;  Teese  v.  Phelps,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,819,  McAllister  48;  Saxby  v. 
Gloucester  Waggon  Co.,  7  Q.  B.  D.  305,  50 
L.  J.  Q.  B.  577  [affirmed  in  75  L.  T.  J.  167]. 

Although  study,  effort,  and  experience  were 
required  for  the  production  of  the  patented 
device,  there  is  no  invention  if  only  mechani- 
cal skill  was  required.  Butler  v.  Steckel,  27 
Fed.  219. 

An  obvious  mechanical  expedient  is  not  pat- 
entable. Consolidated  Store-Service  Co.  v. 
Siegel-Cooper  Co.,  103  Fed.  489. 

Merely  broadening  the  flange  of  a  mail  bag 
and  increasing  the  number  of  rivets  used  in 
attaching  it  to  the  bag  require  no  invention. 
Thompson  v.  U.  S.,  27  Ct.  Cl.  61. 

A  tapering  shaft  and  cylindrical  bearing 
being  old  in  stone  crushers,  the  desirability 
and  practicability  of  producing  a  continuous 
line  of  contact  in  the  bearing  is  obvious,  and 

[III,  E.  8] 


involves  no  invention.  Fraser  v.  Gates  Iron 
Works,  85  Fed.  441,  29  C.  C.  A.  261. 

Mechanical  skill  in  making  clothing  illus- 
trated see  Corser  v.  Brattleboro  Overall  Co., 
93  Fed.  809;  Way  v.  McClarin,  91  Fed.  663; 
Fay  v.  Duell,  90  Off.  Gaz.  1157;  Ypsilanti 
Dress  Stay  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Van  Valkenburg,  76 
Off.  Gaz.  333;  Dalby  v.  Lynes,  71  Off.  Gaz. 
1317;  Shenfield  v.  Nashawannuck  Mfg.  Co., 
53  Off.  Gaz.  1093. 

The  true  test  of  invention  is  not  whether 
an  ordinary  mechanic  can  make  the  combina- 
tion, if  it  is  suggested,  but  whether  he  would 
make  the  combination  without  suggestion,  by 
means  of  his  ordinary  knowledge.  Woodman 
v.  Stimpson,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,979,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  98. 

76.  Atlantic   Works   t\    Brady,    107   U.    S. 
192,   200,   2    S.    Ct.    225,    27    L.   ed.    438,    in 
which  it  was  further  said :     "  Such  an  indis- 
criminate   creation    of    exclusive    privileges 
tends   rather  to   obstruct  than  to   stimulate 
invention.     It  creates  a  class  of  speculative 
schemers  who  make  it  their  business  to  watch 
the    advancing    wave    of    improvement,    and 
gather  its  foam  in  the  form  of  patented  mo- 
nopolies, which  enable  them  to  lay  a  heavy 
tax  upon  the  industry  of  the  country,  with- 
out contributing  anything  to  the  real  advance- 
ment of  the  arts." 

77.  Blandy   v.    Griffith,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,529,  -3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  609. 

78.  In  re  Draper,   10  App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
545;  Risdon  Iron,  etc.,  Works  v.  Medart,  158 
U.  S.  68,  15  S.  Ct.  745,  39  L.  ed.  899 ;  Burt  v. 
Evory,  133  U.  S.  349,  10  S.  Ct.  394,  33  L.  ed. 
647;    Pickering    v.    McCullough,    104    U.    S. 
310,  26  L.  ed.  749;  Smith  v.  Nichols,  21  Wall. 
(U.  S.)    112,  22  L.  ed.  566;  Harder  v.  U.  S. 
Steel    Piling    Co.,    149    Fed.    434;    Baker    v. 
Duncombe  Mfg.  Co.,  146  Fed.  744,  77  C.  C.  A. 
234;   Farmers'  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Spruks  Mfg.  Co., 
119  Fed.  594  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
127    Fed.   691,   62    C.   C.   A.   447]  ;    National 
Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stecher  Lith.  Co.,  81 
Fed.  395,  26  C.  C.  A.  448 ;  Hake  v.  Brown,  37 
Fed.  783;   Aiken  ?.  Dolan,   1   Fed.  Cas.  No. 
110,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  197;  Arnold  v.  Pettee,  1 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5616;  In  re  Fultz,  9  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,156,  McArthur  Pat.   Cas.    178;   Isaacs 
v.  Abrams,   13   Fed.   Cas.   No.   7,095,   3   Ban. 
&  A.  616,  14  Off.  Gaz.  861;  Meyer  v.  Pritch- 
ard,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,517,  1  Ban.  &  A.  261, 
12  Blatchf.  101,  7  Off.  Gaz.  1012;  Wooster  v. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     851 


workmanship.79     A  machine-made  article  is  not  patentable  over  one  which  is  hand- 
made or  rough.80 

10.  DIFFERENCE  IN  DEGREE  NOT  PATENTABLE.  A  difference  in  degree  is  a  mere 
carrying  forward  of  new  or  more  extended  application  by  one  person  of  the  origi- 
nal thought  of  another.81  And  a  change  in  an  existing  means  which  produces 
nothing  save  a  difference  in  degree  is  not  patentable.82 


Calhoun,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,035,  11  Blatchf. 
215,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  514;  Huntington  v. 
Lutz,  13  U.  C.  C.  P.  168.  And  see  supra. 
Ill,  B,  9. 

Obtaining  a  more  attractive  exterior,  or 
securing  a  more  salable  article,  does  not  prove 
originality  of  conception.  In  re  Hoey,  28 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  416. 

79.  McDonald  v.  McLean,  38  Fed.  328,  13 
Sawy.  635 ;   Holly  v.  Vergennes  Mach.  Co.,  4 
Fed.  74,  18  Blatchf.  327;  Smith  v.  Elliott,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,041,  9  Blatchf.  400,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  315,  1  Off.  Gaz.  331. 

Skilful  manipulation  does  not  make  inven- 
tion. Blakesley  Novelty  Co.  v.  Connecticut 
Web  Co.,  78  Fed.  480.  ' 

80.  Boyd   17.   Janesville    Hay-Tool   Co.,    37 
Fed.  887 ;  U.  S.  Bung  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Independent 
Bung,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Fed.  76,  24  Blatchf.  406; 
MacKay  i\  Jackman,  12  Fed.  615,  20  Blatchf. 
466;  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,944, 
3  McLean  250,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  118;  Draper 
v.   Hudson,   7    Fed.    Cas.   No.   4,069,    6    Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  327,  Holmes  208,  3  Off.  Gaz.  354; 
Miller's  Falls  Co.  v.  Backus,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,598,  5  Ban.  &  A.  53,  17  Off.  Gaz.  852;  In  re 
Nutting,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,385,  McArthur 
Pat.  Cas.  455;  Wooster  v.  Calhoun,  30  Fed. 
€as.  No.  18,035,  11  Blatchf.  215,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  514. 

Comminuted  glue  is  not  patentable  over 
glue  in  flakes.  Milligan,  etc.,  Glue  Co.  v. 
Upton,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,607,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
497,  4  Cliff.  237,  6  Off.  Gaz.  837  [affirmed  in 
97  U.  S.  3,  24  L.  ed.  985]. 

81.  In  re  Klemm,   21    App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
186;  In  re  Iwan,  17  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   566; 
Voightmann  v.   Weis,   etc.,   Cornice   Co.,    133 
Fed.  298   [affirmed  in  148  Fed.  848]  ;  Galvin 
v.  Grand  Rapids,  115  Fed.  511,  53  C.  C.  A. 
165;   Dodge  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio  Valley  Pulley 
Works,    101    Fed.   584;    Soehner   v.    Favorite 
Stove,  etc.,  Co.,  84  Fed.  182,  28  C.  C.  A.  317; 
Troy  Laundry  Mach.  Co.  v.  Ap  Rees,  67  Fed. 
336,  14  C.  C.  A.  405;   Hill  v.  Houghton,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,493,  1  Ban.  &  A.  291,  6  Off. 
Gaz.  3;   Smith  v.  Nichols,  22   Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,084,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  61,  Holmes   172,  2 
Off.  Gaz.  649   [affirmed  in  21  Wall.  112,  22 
L.  ed.  566]. 

Mere  superiority  of  device  does  not  prove 
invention.  Rice  v.  Heald,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,752  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  104 
U.  S.  737,  26  L.  ed.  910]. 

82.  In  re  Beswick,   16  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
345;    American  Road-Mach.   Co.    v.   Pennock, 
etc.,  Co.,  164  U.  S.  26,  17  S.  Ct.  1,  41  L.  ed, 
337;  Wright  v.  Yuengling,  155  U.  S.  47,  15 
S.  Ct.   1,  39  L.  ed.   6.4;   Ansonia  Brass,  etc., 
Co,  v.  Electrical   Supply   Co.,    144  U.   S.   11, 
12   S.   Ct.  601,   36  L.  ed.   327;    International 
Tooth-Crown   Co.  V.   Gaylord,    140  U.   S.   55, 


11  S.  Ct.  716,  35  L.  ed.  347;  Burt  v.  Evory, 
133  U.  S.  349,  10  S.  Ct.  394,  33  L.  ed.  647; 
Guidet  v.  Brooklyn,  105  U.  S.  550,  26  L.  ed. 
1106;  Smith  v.  Nichols,  21  Wall.  (U.  .S.) 
112,  22  L.  ed.  566;  Eames  v.  Worcester  Poly- 
technic Inst.,  123  Fed.  67,  60  C.  C.  A.  37; 
Johnston  v.  Woodbury,  96  Fed.  421;  Lappin 
Brake-Shoe  Co.  v.  Corning  Brake-Shoe  Co., 
94  Fed.  162  [affirmed  in  99  Fed.  1004,  40  C.  C. 
A.  215];  Corser  v.  Brattleboro  Overall  Co., 
93  F'ed.  809;  Solvay  Process  Co.  v.  Michigan 
Alkali  Co.,  90  Fed.  818,  33  C.  C.  A.  285; 
Talbot  v.  Fear,  89  Fed.  197,  32  C.  C.  A.  186; 
Gibbon  v.  Loewer  Sole-Rounder  Co.,  79  Fed. 
325,  24  C.  C.  A.  612;  Eastman  Co.  v.  Getz, 
77  Fed.  412;  Ferris  v.  Batcheller,  70  Fed. 
714;  Caverly  v.  Deere,  66  Fed.  305,  13 
C.  C.  A.  452  [affirming  52  Fed.  758]  ;  Ameri- 
can Roll-Paper  Co.  v.  Weston,  59  Fed.  147,  8 
C.  C.  A.  56;  Steiner  Fire-Extinguisher  Co. 
v.  Adrian,  59  Fed.  132,  8  C.  C.  A.  44  [affirm- 
ing 52  Fed.  731];  Curtis  v.  Overman  Wheel 
Co.,  58  Fed.  784,  7  C.  C.  A.  493  [reversing 
53  Fed.  247];  D.  E.  Jones  Co.  v.  Munger 
Improved  Cotton  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  49  led. 
61;  Peoria  Target  Co.  v.  Cleveland  Target 
Co.,  47  Fed.  725;  Spill  v.  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co., 
21  Fed.  631,  22  Blatchf.  441;  Theberath  v. 
Rubber,  etc.,  Harness  Trimming  Co.,  15  Fed. 
246;  Sawyer  v.  Miller,  12  Fed.  725,  4  Woods 
472;  Perry  v.  Co-operative  Foundry  Co.,  12 
Fed.  149,  20  Blatchf.  505;  Beatty  v.  Hodges, 
8  Fed.  610,  19  Blatchf.  381;  Dane  v.  Chicago 
Mfg.  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,557,  3  Biss.  380, 
6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  130,  2  Off.  Gaz.  677;  Park- 
hurst  v.  Kinsman,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,757, 
1  Blatchf.  488,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  161,  8  N.  Y. 
Leg.  Obs.  146;  Tatliam  v.  Le  Roy,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,760,  2  Blatchf.  474;  Thomson  v. 
U.  S.,  27  Ct.  01.  61. 

Mere  enlarging  and  strengthening  is  not 
invention.  Woodbury  Patent  Planing  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Keith,  101  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed.  939. 

A  change  in  size  or  proportions  is  not  in- 
vention. Day  v.  Bankers'  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,672,  9  Blatchf.  345,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  268,  1  Off.  Gaz.  551. 

Increasing  weight  of  hand-wheel  is  not  in- 
vention. American  Road-Mach.  Co.  v.  Pen- 
nock,  etc.,  Co.,  164  U.  S.  26,  17  S.  Ct.  1, 
41  L.  ed.  337. 

Use  of  pure  chemicals  in  place  of  impure 
is  not  invention.  Buckan  v.  McKesson,  7 
Fed.  100,  18  Blatchf.  485. 

Change  in  strength  of  solution  used  is  not 
invention.  Spill  v.  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.,  21 
Fed.  631,  22  Blatchf.  441  [affirmed  in  140 
U.  S.  698,  11  S.  Ct.  1028,  35  L.  ed.  593]. 

Merely  extending  valve  rod  for  convenience 
is  not  invention.  Crosby  Steam  Gage,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Ashton  Valve  Co.,  94  Fed.  516,  36 
C.  C.  A.  335. 

[Ill,  E,  10] 


852     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


11.  DUPLICATION  OF  PARTS.83     A  mere  duplication  of  parts  is  not  patentable  j84 
but,  where  one  so  modifies  the  other  as  to  produce  a  new  result  and  not  the  mere 
added  results  of  the  two,  there  may  be  patentability.85 

12.  DOUBLE  USE.     Double  use  is  the  use  of  an  old  means  for  a  new  but  analo- 
gous purpose  and  is  not  patentable.86     The   application  of   an    old  process  or 


83.  Duplication  or  combination  of  parts  as 
infringement  see  infra,  XIII,  A,  6,  i. 

84.  In  re  Volkmann,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
441;    In   re   Klemm,    21   App.    Cas.    (D.   C.) 
186;  MeBerty  v.  Cook,  16  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
133;   Maier  t?.  Bloom,  95  Fed.   159;    Interior 
Lumber    Co.    v.    Perkins,    80    Fed.    528,    25 
C.   C.   A.   613;    Shaw  Electric   Crane   Co.   v. 
Worthington,    77    Fed.    992;    Office    Specialty 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Globe  Co.,  77  Fed.  465,  23  C.  C. 
A.    242;    New   Departure   Bell   Co.   v.   Bevin 
Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  73  Fed.  469,  19  C.  C.  A.  534; 
Troy    Laundry    Mach.    Co.    v.    Ap    Rees,    67 
Fed.  337,  14  C.  C.  A.  405 ;  Thomson  v.  U.  S., 
27  Ct.  Cl.  61;  In  re  Scott,  117  Off.  Gaz.  278. 

Putting  additional  pane  of  glass  in  fare  box 
is  not  invention.  Slawson  v.  Grand  St.,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  107  U.  S.  649,  2  S.  Ct.  663,  27  L.  ed. 
576. 

The  insertion  of  an  additional  gear  and 
pinion  wheel  in  a  train  of  such  wheels  ar- 
ranged to  transmit  motion  is  not  invention. 
In  re  Volkmann,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  441. 

Putting  several  articles  in  one  package  is 
not  patentable.  King  v.  Frostel,  14  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,794,  4  Ban.  &  A.  236,  8  Biss.  510, 
8  Reporter  490,  16  Off.  Gaz.  956  [affirmed  in 
109  U.  S.  99,  3  S.  Ct.  85,  27  L.  ed.  870]. 

Making  screen  in  three  parts  instead  of  two 
is  not  invention.  Ferguson  v.  Ed.  Roos  Mfg. 
Co.,  71  Fed.  416,  18  C.  C.  A.  162. 

Connecting  the  shafts  of  two  mills  is  not 
invention.  Consolidated  Roller-Mill  Co.  v. 
Barnard,  43  Fed.  527  [affirmed  in  156  U.  S. 
261,  15  S.  Ct.  333,  39  L.  ed.  417]. 

Insertion  of  an  additional  gear  and  pinion 
wheel  in  a  train  of  such  wheels  arranged  to 
transmit  motion  is  not  invention.  New  De- 
parture Bell  Co.  v.  Bevin  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  73 
Fed.  469,  19  C.  C.  A.  534. 

85.  Goss  Printing-Press   Co.  v.  Scott,   108 
Fed.  253,  47  C.  C.  A.  302;  Gindorff  v.  Deer- 
ing,  81   Fed.  952;   Brush  Electric  Co.   v.  Ft. 
Wayne    Electric    Light    Co.,    40    Fed.    826; 
Parker  v.  Hulme,    18   Fed.   Cas.  No.    10^740, 

I  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  44. 

86.  In  re  McNeil,  28  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
461;  In  re  Welch,  28  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   362; 
In  re  Klemm,    21   App.    Cas.    (D.   C.)    186; 
In  re  Bedford,    14  App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    376; 
Mast  «.  Stover  Mfg.  Co.,  177  U.  S.  485,  20 
S.  Ct.  708,  44  L.  ed.  856 ;  Market  St.  Cable  R. 
Co.  v.  Rowley,  155  U.  S.  621,  15  S.  Ct.  224, 
39  L.  ed.  284,  70  Off.  Gaz.  632;   Leggett  v. 
Standard  Oil   Co.,    149  U.   S.  287,   13   S.  Ct. 
902,  37  L.  ed.  737,  63  Off.  Gaz.  1201;  Lovell 
Mfg.  Co.   v.  Cary,  147  U.  S.  623,   13  S.  Ct. 
472,  37  L.  ed.  307,  62  Off.  Gaz.  1821 ;  Busell 
Trimmer  Co.  v.  Stevens,   137  U.   S.  423,   11 
S.  Ct.  150,  34  L.  ed.  719,  53  Off.  Gaz.  2044; 
Fond  du  Lac  County  v.  May,  137  U.  S.  395, 

II  S.  Ct.  98,  34  L.  ed.  714;   St.  Germain  V. 
Brunswick,    135   U.   S.   227,    10    S.   Ct.    822, 

[III.  E.  11] 


34  L.  ed.  122,  51  Off.  Gaz.  1129;  Howe  Mach. 
Co.  v.  National  Needle  Co.,  134  U.  S.  388, 
10  S.  Ct.  570,  33  L.  ed.  963,  31  Off.  Gaz. 
475;  Marchand  v.  Emken,  132  U.  S.  195,  10 
S.  Ct.  65,  33  L.  ed.  332,  49  Off.  Gaz.  1841; 
Day  i?.  Fair  Haven,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132  U.  S. 
98,  10  S.  Ct.  11,  33  L.  ed.  265,  49  Off.  Gaz. 
1364;  Peters  v.  Hanson,  129  U.  S.  541,  9  S. 
Ct.  393,  32  L.  ed.  742,  47  Off.  Gaz.  945; 
Crescent  Brewing  Co.  v.  Gottfried,  128  U.  S. 
158,  9  S.  Ct.  83,  32  L.  ed.  390,  45  Off.  Gaz. 
944;  Holland  v.  Shipley,  127  U.  S.  396,  8 
S.  Ct.  1089,  32  L.  ed.  185;  Dreyfus  v.  Searle, 
124  U.  S.  60,  8  S.  Ct.  390,  31  L.  ed.  352; 
Blake  v.  San  Francisco,  113  U.  S.  679,  5  S. 
Ct.  692,  28  L.  ed.  1070;  Morris  v.  McMillin, 
112  U.  S.  244,  5  S.  Ct.  218,  28  L.  ed.  702; 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.  v.  Locomotive  Engine 
Safety  Truck  Co.,  110  U.  S.  490,  4  S.  Ct. 
220,  28  L.  ed.  222,  27  Off.  Gaz.  207;  Vinton 
v.  Hamilton,  104  U.  S.  485,  26  L.  ed.  807; 
Roberts  v.  Ryer,  91  U.  S.  150,  23  L.  ed.  267; 
Brown  v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200; 
Tucker  17.  Spalding,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.)  453, 
20  L.  ed.  515;  Baker  v.  F.  A.  Duncombe  Mfg. 
Co,  146  Fed.  744,  77  C.  C.  A.  234;  Voight- 
mann  v.  Weis,  etc.,  Cornice  Co.,  133  Fed. 
298  [affirmed  in  148  Fed.  848] ;  Antisdel  v. 
Bent,  122  Fed.  811;  Indiana  Novelty  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Crocker  Chair  Co.,  103  Fed.  496,  43 
C.  C.  A.  287;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co. 
v.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  98  Fed.  105; 
Chatillon  v.  Forschner,  96  Fed.  342;  Thom- 
son-Houston Electric  Co.  v.  Rahway  Elec- 
tric Light,  etc.,  Co,  95  Fed.  660;  Briggs  0. 
Duell,  93  Fed.  972,  36  C.  C.  A.  38;  Gaitley 
v.  Greene,  92  Fed.  367;  Falk  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Missouri  R.  Co,  91  Fed.  155;  Solvay  Proc- 
ess Co.  v.  Michigan  Alkali  Co.,  90  Fed.  818, 
33  C.  C.  A.  285;  Clisby  v.  Reese,  88  Fed. 
645,  32  C.  C.  A.  80;  Capital  Sheet-Metal  Co.  v. 
Kinnear,  etc,  Co.,  87  Fed.  333,  31  C.  C.  A.  3; 
Safeguard  Account  Co.  v.  Wellington,  86  Fed. 
146 ;  Bannerman  v.  Sanf ord,  85  Fed.  448 ; 
Paul  Boynton  Co.  v.  Morris  Chute  Co,  82  Fed. 
440;  Interior  Lumber  Co.  v.  Perkins,  80  Fed. 
528,  25  C.  C.  A.  613  [revising  51  Fed.  286]  ; 
Shaw  Electric  Crane  Co.  v.  Worthington,  77 
Fed.  992;  Office  Specialty  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Globe 
Co,  77  Fed.  465,  23  C.  C.  A.  242  [affirming 
65  Fed.  599];  Potts  v.  Creager,  77  Fed.  434; 
Adams  Electric  R.  Co.  v.  Lindell  R.  Co,  77 
Fed.  432,  23  C.  C.  A.  223;  Eastman  Co.  v. 
Getz,  77  Fed.  412;  New  Departure  Bell  Co. 
v.  Bevin  Bros.  Mfg.  Co,  73  Fed.  469,  19 
C.  C.  A.  534;  Inman  Mfg.  Co.  i;.  Beach,  71  Fed. 
420,  18  C.  C.  A.  165,  74  Off.  Gaz.  379;  Cod- 
man  v.  Amia,  70  Fed.  710  [affirmed  in  74 
Fed.  634,  20  C.  C.  A.  566] ;  Thomson  Meter 
Co.  v.  National  Meter  Co,  65  Fed.  427,  12 
C.  C.  A.  671,  70  Off.  Gaz.  925;  Steiner  Fire- 
Extinguisher  Co.  v.  Adrian,  59  Fed.  1«*2,  8 
C.  C.  A.  44;  Forgie  v.  Oil-Well  Supply 


PATENTS  [30  Cyc.]     853 

machine  to  a  similar  or  analogous  subject  with  no  change  in  the  manner  of  applj- 


57  Fed.  742  [affirmed  in  58  Fed.  871,  7 
C.  C.  A.  551];  Zinsser  v.  Krueger,  48  Fed. 
296,  1  C.  C.  A.  73  [affirming  45  Fed.  572]; 
Whitcomb  v.  Spring  Valley  Coal  Co.,  47  Fed. 
652;  Simmond  v.  Morrison,  44  Fed.  757; 
Grinnell  v.  Walworth  Mfg.  Co.,  43  Fed.  590; 
McCarty  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  43  Fed. 
384;  Smith  v.  Partridge,  42  Fed.  57;  Royer 
47.  Schultz  Belting  Co.,  40  Fed.  160  [follow- 
ing Royer  v.  Chicago  Mfg.  Co.,  20  Fed.  853]  ; 
Hale,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hartford  Woven  Wire 
Mattress  Co.,  36  Fed.  762;  Mann's  Boudoir 
Car  Co.  v-  Monarch  Parlor  Sleeping  Car  Co., 
34  Fed.  130;  Byerly  v.  Cleveland  Linseed 
Oil  Works,  31  Fed.  73;  Scheidler  v.  Tustin, 
23  Fed.  887;  Royer  v.  Chicago  Mfg.  Co.,  20 
Fed.  853;  Clark  Pomace-Holder  Co.  v.  Fer- 
guson, 17  Fed.  79,  21  Blatchf.  376;  New 
York  Grape  Sugar  Co.  v.  American  Grape 
Sugar  Co.,  10  Fed.  835,  20  Blatchf.  386; 
Gottfried  v.  Crescent  Brewing  Co.,  9  Fed. 
762;  Crandal  v.  Walters,  9  Fed.  659,  20 
Blatchf.  97;  Griffiths  v.  Holmes,  8  Fed.  154; 
Rowell  v.  Lindsay,  6  Fed.  290,  10  Biss.  217 
[affirmed  in  113  U.  S.  97,  5  S.  Ct.  507,  28 
L.  ed.  906] ;  American  Whip  Co.  v.  Hamp- 
den  Whip  Co.,  1  Fed.  87;  Bean  v.  Small- 
wood,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,173,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  133,  2  Story  408;  Ex  p.  Berry,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,353;  In  re  Blandy,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,528,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  552;  Couse 
47.  Johnson,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,288,  4  Ban. 

6  A.  501,  16  Off.  Gaz.  719;  Dennis  v.  Cross, 

7  Fed.   Cas.  No.  3,792,  3   Biss.   389,  6  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  138;  Hazard  v.  Green,  11  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,277;    Mahn  v.  Harwood,    16   Fed.   Cas. 
No.  8,966,  3  Ban.  &  A.  515,  14  Off.  Gaz.  859 
[affirmed  in  112  U.  S.  354,  6  S.  Ct.  451,  28 
L.    ed.    665] ;    Northrup   t?.    Adams,    18    Fed. 
Cas.   No.    10,328,    2   Ban.   &  A.   567,    12   Off. 
Gaz.   430;    Piper  17.  Moon,   19   Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,182,    10    Blatchf.    264,    6    Fish.   Pat.    Cas. 
180,  3  Off.  Gaz.  4;  Richardson  47.  Lockwood, 
20  Fed.   Cas.  No.   11,787,  6  Fish.  Pat.   Cas. 
454,   4   Off.   Gaz.   398;    Swift   v.   Whisen,  23 
Fed.    Cas.   No.    13,700,   2   Bond   115,   3   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  343;   Tyler  v.  Deval,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,307,  1  Code  Rep.    (N.  Y.)    30;  U.  S., 
etc.,    Salamander    Felting   Co.    v.    Haven,    28 
Fed.    Cas.   No.    16,788,   2   Ban.    &  A.    164,   9 
Off.  Gaz.  253;  Winans  47.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
30   Fed.    Cas.   No.    17,858,   2   Robb  Pat.   Cas. 
136,  2  Story  412;   Woven-Wire  Mattress  Co. 
17.    Whittlesey,    30    Fed.    Cas.    No.    18,058,    8 
Biss.  23;  Millett,  etc.,  Steam  Gage,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Allen,   115  Off.  Gaz.    1586;   In  re  Adams, 
114  Off.  Gaz.  2093;  Parkes  v.  Stevens,  L.  R. 
5  Ch.  36,  22  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  635,  18  Wkly. 
Rep.   233;    Jordan  47.   Moore,  L.   R.    1    C.   P. 
624,   12  Jur.  N.   S.  766,  35  L.  J.  C.  P.  268, 

14  Wkly.  Rep.  769;  Reg.  47.  Cutler,  14  Q.  B. 
372  note,  68  E.  C.  L.  373,  3  C.  &  K.  215,  1 
Stark.  354,  2  E.  C.  L.  138;  Thompson  v. 
James,  32  Beav.  570,  55  Eng.  Reprint  224; 
Window  Cleanot  Co.  v.  Bosley,  15  Brodix 
Am.  &  Eng.  Pat.  Cas.  64;  Ralston  47.  Smith, 
20  C.  B.  N.  S.  28,  11  H.  L.  Cas.  223,  35  L.  J. 
C.  P.  49,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  1,  11  Eng. 


Reprint  1318;  Ormson  47.  Clarke,  13  C.  B. 
N.  S.  337,  9  Jur.  N.  S.  749,  32  L.  J.  C.  P. 
8,  7  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  361,  11  Wkly.  Rep. 
118  [affirmed  in  14  C.  B.  N.  S.  475,  10  Jur. 
N.  S.  128,  32  L.  J.  C.  P.  291,  11  Wkly.  Rep. 
787,  108  E.  C.  L.  475] ;  Horton  47.  Mabon, 
12  C.  B.  N.  S.  437,  31  L.  J.  C.  P.  255,  6 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  289,  10  Wkly.  Rep.  582,  104 
E.  C.  L.  437  [affirmed  in  16  C.  B.  N.  S.  141, 

9  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  815,  12  Wkly.  Rep.  491, 
111   E.   C.  L.    141];    Patent  Bottle  Envelope 
Co.   v.   Seymer,   5    C.   B.   N.    S.    164,   5   Jur. 
N.  S.  174,  28  L.  J.  C.  P.  22,  94  E.  C.  L.  164; 
Tetley   47.    Easton,    2    C.    B.    N.    S.    706,    26 
L.  J.  C.  P.  269,  89  E.  C.  L.  706;   Steiner  v. 
Heald,   6   Exch.   607,    17   Jur.   875,   20  L.  J. 
Exch.  410;   Young  v.  Fernie,  4  Giffard  577, 

10  Jur.  N.  S.  926,  10  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  861, 
12    Wkly.   Rep.    901,    66    Eng.    Reprint    836; 
Brook  v.  Aston,  5  Jur.  N.  S.  1025,  28  L.  J. 
Q.  B.   175    [affirming  8  E.  &  B.  478,  5  Jur. 
N.  S.  279,  27  L.  J.  Q.  B.  145,  6  Wkly.  Rep. 
42,  92  E.  C.  L.  478] ;  Meldrum  47.  Wilson,  7 
Can.    Exch.    198;    Abell    4?.    McPherson,    17 
Grant  Ch.   (U.  C.)   23  [affirmed. in  18  Grant 
Ch.  (U.  C.)  437]. 

Applications  of  rule. —  Use  in  gloves  of  a 
welt  old  in  shoes  is  not  invention.  Busby  v. 
Ladd.  39  Fed.  551.  Stitch  old  in  cardigan 
jackets  not  patentable  for  undershirts.  Dalby 
47.  Lynes,  64  Fed.  376.  Use  of  old  shifting 
device  on  fulling  machines  is  not  invention. 
Royer  v.  Roth,  132  U.  S.  201,  10  S.  Ct.  58,  33 
L.  ed.  322.  Fire-extinguisher  is  anticipated 
by  soda-water  apparatus.  Northwestern  Fire 
Extinguisher  Co.  47.  Philadelphia  Fire  Extin- 
guisher Co.,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,337,  1  Ban. 
&  A.  177,  6  Off.  Gaz.  34,  10  Phila.  (Pa.) 
227.  Safety  pins  in  ore  crusher  is  mere 
double  use.  Gates  Iron  Works  v.  Fraser,  153 
U.  S.  332,  14  S.  Ct.  883,  38  L.  ed.  734.  Lift- 
ing pills  by  device  used  for  lifting  paper  is 
not  patentable.  Stearns  v.  Russell,  85  Fed. 
218,  29  C.  C.  A.  121.  Anti-friction  rollers  in 
pipe  cutter  is  not  invention.  Saunders  v. 
Allen,  60  Fed.  610,  9  C.  C.  A.  157.  Preserving 
corn  by  process  old  for  other  vegetables  is 
not  patentable.  Jones  v.  Hodges,  13  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,469,  Holmes  37.  Making  flat  sus- 
pender ends  like  other  button  holes  has  been 
made  not  invention.  Shenfield  v.  Nasha- 
wannuck  Mfg.  Co.,  137  U.  S.  56,  11  S.  Ct.  5, 
34  L.  ed.  573.  Tempering  furniture  springs 
by  process  old  applied  to  watch  springs  not 
invention.  Lovell  Mfg.  Co.  47.  Gary,  147  U.  S. 
623,  13  S.  Ct.  472,  37  L.  ed.  307  [reversing 
31  Fed.  344].  Swaging  tooth  crowns  by  old 
method  of  swaging  is  not  invention.  Rynear 
Co.  47.  Evans,  83  Fed.  696.  Electric  gas 
lighter  applied  to  gas  engines  is  not  inven- 
tion. Union  Gas-Engine  Co.  v.  Doak,  88  Fed. 
86.  Hog  hoist  is  anticipated  by  hoist  for 
building  material.  In  re  Lowry,  14  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  473.  Suspenders  and  stocking 
supporters  are  analogous.  In  re  Smith,  14 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  181.  Woodworking  ma- 
chine used  in  shoemaking  is  not  invention. 
McKay-Copeland  Lasting  "Mach.  Co.  v.  Cope- 

[III,  E,  12] 


854:     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


ing  it  and  no  result  substantially  distinct  in  its  nature  will  not  sustain  a  patent 
even  if  the  new  form  of  result  lias  not  before  been  contemplated.87 

13.  NEW  AND  NON-ANALOGOUS  USE.  The  transfer  of  an  old  invention  from  one 
art  to  another  which  is  not  analogous  and  the  adaptation  of  it  to  perform  new 
functions  and  accomplish  new  results  in  the  new  art  may  amount  to  invention.84 


land  Rapid-Laster  Mfg.  Co.,  77  Fed.  306. 
Painting  on  clay  and  canvas  are  analogous. 
Fry  v.  Rookwood  Pottery,  101  Fed.  723,  41 
C.  C.  A.  634.  Wood-planing  and  ice-cutting 
are  analogous.  In  re  Briggs,  9  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  478.  Journal  bearings  are  in  the 
same  art  in  whatever  apparatus  they  are 
found.  Fraser  v.  Gates  Iron  Works,  85  Fed. 
441,  29  C.  C.  A.  261.  Use  of  valve  in  a  new 
place  is  not  invention  unless  changes  neces- 
sary. Judson  v.  Moore,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,569.  1  Bond  285,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  544. 

Chemical  processes.—  It  has  been  held  that 
the  rule  does  not  apply  to  chemical  processes. 
Young  v.  Fernie,  4  Giffard  577,  10  Jur.  N.  S. 
926,  10  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  861,  12  Wkly.  Rep. 
901,  66  Eng.  Reprint  836. 

87.  Millett  v.  Allen,  27  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
70;   In  re  Butterfield,  23  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
84;  In  re  Verley,  19  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   597; 
In  re  Nimmy,    13    App.    Cas.    (D.   C.)    565; 
Western  Electric  Co.  v.  La  Rue,   139  U.  S. 
601,  11  S.  Ct.  670,  35  L.  ed.  294  [affirming  31 
Fed.  80,  24  Blatchf.  392]  ;  Miller  v.  Force,  116 
U.  S.  22,  6  S.  Ct.  204,  29  L.  ed.  552;  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.  v.  Locomotive  Engine  Safety 
Truck  Co.,   110  U.  S.  490,  4  S.  Ct.  220,  2*8 
L.  ed.  222;   National  Meter  Co.  v.  Neptune 
Meter   Co.,    122    Fed.   75    [reversed  on   other 
grounds  in  127  Fed.  563,  62  C.  C.  A.  345]; 
Johnson  Co.  v.  Toledo  Traction  Co.,  119  Fed. 
885,  56  C.  C.  A.  415;   Standard  Caster,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Caster  Socket  Co.,    113   Fed.   162,  51 
C.  C.  A.  109;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co. 
v.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,   107  Fed.  277,  46 
C.  C.  A.  263;   Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v. 
E.  G.  Bernard  Co.,  88  Fed.  267 ;  U.  S.  Repair, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Standard  Paving  Co.,  87  Fed.  339 ; 
Adams  Electric  R.  Co.  v.  Lindell  R.  Co.,  77 
Fed.  432,  23  C.  C.  A.  223;  Young  v.  Balti- 
more County  Hedge,  etc.,  Fence  Co.,  51  Fed. 
109;    Union   Paper-Collar   Co.   v.  Leland,   24 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,394,  1  Ban.  &  A.  491,  Holmes 
427,  7  Off.  Gaz.  221. 

88.  In    re   Weiss,    21    App.    Cas.    (D.    C.) 
214;    Potts    v.    Creager,    155    U.    S.    597,    15 
S.  Ct.  194,  39  L.  ed.  275 ;  Hale,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
17.  Oneonta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  124  Fed.  514;   Dia- 
mond Drill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelly,  120  Fed.  289; 
R.   Thomas,   etc.,    Co.    v.   Electric   Porcelain, 
etc.,  Co.,  Ill  Fed.  923;  Wilfley  v.  Denver  En- 
gineering Works  Co.,  1 1 1  Fed.  760 ;  American 
Well  Works  v.  F.  C.  Austin  Mfg.  Co.,  98  Fed. 
992    [affirmed  in   121    Fed.   76,   57    C.   C.  A. 
330]  ;  Dodge  v.  Porter,  98  Fed.  624 ;  Reynolds 
v.   Buzzell,   96   Fed.   997,   37    C.   C.   A.   656; 
Carnegie  Steel   Co.  v.  Cambria  Iron  Co.,  89 
Fed.  721  [affirmed  in  185  U.  S.  403,  22  S.  Ct. 
698,  46  L.  ed.  968];   Hanifen  v.  E.  H.  God- 
shalk  Co.,  78   Fed.   811;   Rose  v.  Hirsh,  77 
Fed.  469,  23  C.  C.  A.  246 ;  Dick  Co.  v.  Henry, 
75  Fed.  388;  Taylor  v.  Sawyer  Spindle  Co., 
75  Fed.  301,  22  C.  C.  A.  203;  A.  B.  Dick  Co. 

[III.  E,  12] 


v.  Wichelman,  74  Fed.  799;  Binns  v.  Zucker, 
etc.,  Chemical  Co.,  70  Fed.  711;  Taws  v. 
Laughlins,  70  Fed.  102;  Consolidated  Brake- 
Shoe  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  412; 
Pacific  Contracting  Co.  v.  Southern  Califor- 
nia Bituminous  Paving  Co.,  48  Fed.  300; 
Peninsular  Novelty  Co.  v.  American  Shoe- 
Tip  Co.,  39  Fed.  791;  Moffitt  v.  Rogers,  8  Fed. 
147  [affirmed  in  106  U.  S.  423,  1  S.  Ct.  70,  27 
L.  ed.  76]  ;  In  re  Boughton,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,696,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  278;  Burden  v. 
Corning,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,144  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  15  How.  252,  14  L.  ed. 
683];  Clark  Patent  Steam,  etc.,  Regulator 
Co.  v.  Copeland,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,866,  2 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  221 ;  Gottfried  v.  Phillip  Best 
Brewing  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,633,  5  Ban. 
&  A.  4,  17  Off.  Gaz.  675 ;  Plastic  Slate-Roofing 
Joint-Stock  Co.  v.  Moore,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,209,  Holmes  167;  Treadwell  v.  Parrott,  24 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,158,  5  Blatchf.  369,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  124;  Winans  v.  Schenectady,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,865,  2  Blatchf. 
279;  Penn  v.  Bibby,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  127,  36  L.  J. 
Ch.  455,  15  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  299,  15  Wkly. 
Rep.  208;  Lane  Fox  v.  Kensington  Electric 
Lighting  Co.,  [1892]  3  Ch.  424,  67  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  440;  Higgs  v.  Goodwin,  E.  B.  &  E.  529, 
5  Jur.  N.  S.  97,  27  L.  J.  Q.  B.  421,  96  E.  C.  L. 
529;  Newton  v.  Vaucher,  6  Exch.  859,  21 
L.  J.  Exch.  305;  Hills  v.  London  Gas  Light 
Co.,  5  H.  &  N.  312,  29  L.  J.  Exch.  409; 
Crane  v.  Price,  12  L.  J.  C.  P.  81,  4  M.  &  G. 
580,  5  Scott  N.  R.  338,  43  E.  C.  L.  301 ;  Gadd 
v.  Manchester,  67  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  569; 
Dangerfield  v.  Jones,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
142;  Bicknell  f.  Paterson,  24  Ont.  App.  427. 
And  see  supra,  III,  B,  8;  III,  C,  4,  j. 

Applications  of  rule. — Mending  holes  in  fire- 
men's hose  and  mending  tin  cans  not  analogous. 
Ex  p.  Mackay,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,836.  Auto- 
matic safe  lock  not  analogous  to  gas  cock. 
Yale  Lock  Co.  v.  Norwich  Nat.  Bank,  6  Fed. 
377,  19  Blatchf.  123.  Corset  springs  not 
analogous  to  carriage  springs.  Barnes  v. 
Straus,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,022,  9  Blatchf.  553, 
5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  531,  2  Off.  Gaz.  62.  Car- 
riage step  not  analogous  to  shoe  soles  or  stir- 
rups. Rubber  Step  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Metropolitan 
R.  Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,101,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
252,  13  Off.  Gaz.  549.  Spinning  machines 
and  centrifugal  driers  are  not  analogous. 
Taylor  v.  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.,  75  Fed.  301,  22 
C.  C.  A.  203  [affirming  69  Fed.  837].  Egg 
crate  not  anticipated  by  sample  case.  Coburn 
v.  Schroeder,  8  Fed.  519,  19  Blatchf.  377. 
Dyeing  and  tanning  are  not  analogous.  Tan- 
nage Co.  v.  Zahn,  70  Fed.  1003,  17  C.  C.  A. 
552  [reversing  66  Fed.  986].  Sucker  rods  for 
wells  and  lightning  rods  are  not  analogous. 
Grosjean  v.  Peck,  etc.,  Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,841,  11  Blatchf.  54.  Wash  boiler  and  bake 
pan  not  analogous.  Bell  v.  U.  S.  Stamping 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     855 


As  already  shown,  if  the  new  use  be  so  nearly  analogous  to  the  former  one  that 
the  applicability  of  the  device  to  its  new  use  would  occur  to  a  person  of  ordinary 
mechanical  skill,  it  is  only  a  case  of  double  use ;  but  if  the  relations  between 
them  be  remote,  and  especially  if  the  use  of  the  old  device  produce  a  new  result, 
it  may  at  least  involve  an  exercise  of  the  inventive  faculty.89  "  Indeed,  it  often 
requires  as  acute  a  perception  of  the  relation  between  cause  and  effect,  and  as 
much  of  the  peculiar  intuitive  genius  which  is  a  characteristic  of  great  inventors, 
to  grasp  the  idea  that  a  device  used  in  one  art  may  be  made  available  in  another, 
as  would  be  necessary  to  create  the  device  de  novo.  And  this  is  not  the  less  true 
if,  after  the  thing  has  been  done,  it  appears  to  the  ordinary  mind  so  simple  as  to 
excite  wonder  that  it  was  not  thought  of  before ;  .  .  .  but  the  decisive  answer 
is  that  with  dozens  and  perhaps  hundred  of  otherjs  laboring  in  the  same  field,  it 
had  never  occurred  to  any  one  before."  ** 

14.  SUBSTITUTION  OF  EQUIVALENTS91  —  a.  In  General.  The  substitution  of  an 
art,  machine  manufacture,  or  composition  of  matter  of  one  element  or  device  for 
another  which  performs  the  same  functions  in  substantially  the  same  way  and 
accomplishes  substantially  the  same  result  is  not  invention.92  The  substantial 


Co.,  32  Fed.  549.  System  of  electric  distri- 
bution not  analogous  to  gas  and  water  dis- 
tribution. Edison  Electric  Co.  v.  Westing- 
house,  55  Fed.  490  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  63  Fed.  588,  11  C.  C.  A.  342].  Combina- 
tion of  muslin  and  paper  patentable  for  col- 
lars, although  before  used  for  maps.  Union 
Paper  Collar  Co.  v.  White,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14.396,  2  Ban.  &  A.  60,  7  Off.  Gaz.  698,  877, 
11  Phila.  (Pa.)  479,  1  Wkly.  Notes  Cas.  362. 
Spikes  and  nails  are  in  different  arts.  Dia- 
mond State  Iron  Co.  v.  Goldie,  84  Fed.  972,  28 
C.  C.  A.  589.  Dyeing  and  tanning  are  not 
analogous.  Tannage  Patent  Co.  v.  Donallen, 
93  Fed.  811.  Spinning  wheels  and  centrifu- 

tal  machines  are  not  analogous.  Taylor  v. 
awyer  Spindle  Co.,  75  Fed.  301,  22  C.  C.  A. 
203  ;  Codman  v.  Amia,  74  Fed.  634,  20  C.  C.  A. 
566.  Where  no  change  is  necessary  to  adapt 
device  to  new  use  there  is  no  invention,  how- 
ever remote  the  art.  Stearns  v.  Russell,  85 
Fed.  218,  29  C.  C.  A.  121. 

89.  Potts   v.    Creager,    155   U.    S.    597,    15 

5.  Ct.  194,  39  L.  ed.  275;  General  Electric  Co. 
v.  Bullock  Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  152  Fed.  427,  81 
C.  C.  A.  569  [reversing  146  Fed.  552]. 

90.  Potts  17.  Creagher,  155  U.  S.  597,  607, 
15  S.  Ct.  194,  39  L.  ed.  275 ;  Taylor  v.  Sawyer 
Spindle  Co.,  75  Fed.  301,  22  C.  C.  A.  203. 

91.  Substitution  of  equivalents  of  elements 
in  infringing  combination  see  infra,  XIII,  A, 

6,  g. 

92.  In  re   Hodges,   28   App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
525;  In  re  Thurston,  26  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
315;    In  re  McNeill,   20  App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
294;   Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Kearney,   158 
U.  S.  461,  15  S.  Ct.  871,  39  L.  ed.  1055;  Du 
Bois  v.  Kirk,  158  U.  S.  58,  15  S.  Ct.  729,  39 
L.  ed.  895;  Sargent  r.  Covert,  152  U.  S.  516, 
14  S.  Ct.  676,  38  L.  ed.  536;  Hoyt  v.  Home, 
145  U.  S.  302,  12  S.  Ct.  922,  36  L.  ed.  713; 
Hartshorn  v.  Saginaw  Barrel  Co.,  119  U.  S. 
664,  7  S.  Ct.  421,  30  L.  ed.  539;  Stephenson 
u.  Brooklyn  Cross-Town  R.  Co.,  114  U.  S.  149, 
5  S.  Ct.  777,  29  L.  ed.  58 ;  Hall  v.  Macneale, 
107  U.  S.  90,  2  S.  Ct.  73,  27  L.  ed.  367;  Heald 
v.  Rice,  104  U.  S.  737,  26  L.  ed.  910;  Crouch 
v.  Roemer,    103   U.   S.   797,   26   L.  ed.   426; 


Union  Paper  Bag  Mach.  Co.  i?.  Murphy,  97 
U.  S.  120,  24  L.  ed.  935 ;  Robert&on  v.  Blake, 
94  U.  S.  728,  24  L.  ed.  245 ;  Dunbar  u.  Meyers, 
94  U.  S.  187,  24  L.  ed.  34;  Smith  «.  Nichols, 
21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  112,  22  L.  ed.  566;  Stimpson 
v.  Woodman,  10  Wall.  (U.  S.)  117,  19  L.  ed. 
866;  O'Reilly  17.  Morse,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  62, 
14  »L.  ed.  601 ;  Lourie  Implement  Co.  17.  Len- 
hart,  130  Fed.  122,  64  C.  C.  A.  456;  U.  S. 
Peg  Wood,  etc.,  Co.  v.  B.  F.  Sturtevant  Co., 
125  Fed.  378,  60  C.  C.  A.  244;  Seiler  v. 
Fuller,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  121  Fed.  85,  57  C.  C.  A. 
339;  Alaska  Packers'  Assoc.  i?.  Letson,  119 
Fed.  599;  Lane  17.  Welds,  99  Fed.  286,  39 
C.  C.  A.  528;  Potts  v.  Creager,  97  Fed.  78, 
38  C.  C.  A.  47;  Bundy  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Detroit 
Time-Register  Co.,  94  Fed.  524,  36  C.  C.  A. 
375;  Parsons  v.  Seelye,  92  Fed.  1005;  Boyn- 
ton  Co.  i?.  Morris  Chute  Co.,  82  Fed.  440: 
Forgie  i?.  Duff  Mfg.  Co.,  81  Fed.  865,  26 
C.  C.  A.  654;  New  Departure  Bell  Co.  v. 
Hardware  Specialty  Co.,  69  Fed.  152;  Oval 
Wood  Dish  Co.  v.  Sandy  Creek,  N.  Y.,  Wood 
Mfg.  Co.,  60  Fed.  285 ;  Geo.  L.  Thomson  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Walbridge,  60  Fed.  91  [affirmed  in  67 
Fed.  1021,  15  C.  C.  A.  166];  Saunders  17. 
Allen.  53  Fed.  109  [affirmed  in  60  Fed.  610, 
9  C.  C.  A.  157] ;  McCarty  17.  Lehigh  Valley  R. 
Co.,  43  Fed.  384;  American  Split- Feather 
Duster  Co.  17.  Levy,  43  Fed.  381;  May  17.  Fond 
du  Lac  County,  27  Fed.  691;  Sawyer  ir. 
Miller,  12  Fed.  725,  4  Woods  472;  Perry  17. 
Co-operative  Foundry  Co.,  12  Fed.  436,  20 
Blatchf.  498;  Crompton  v.  Knowles,  7  Fed. 
204;  Holly  17.  Vergennes  Mfg.  Co.,  4  Fed.  74, 
18  Blatchf.  327;  Blanchard's  Gun-Stock  Turn- 
ing Factory  v.  Warner,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,521, 
1  Blatchf.  258,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  184;  Conover 
v.  Roach,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,125,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  12 ;  Ex  p.  Dietz,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,902 ; 
In  re  Everson,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,580,  McAr- 
thur  Pat.  Cas.  406;  Fisher  v.  Craig,  9  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,817,  1  Ban.  &  A.  365,  3  Sawy.  69; 
King  v.  Louisville  Cement  Co.,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,798,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  336,  4  Off.  Gaz. 
181;  Potter  17.  Thayer,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,340,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  603,  Holmes  293,  2 
Off.  Gaz.  32;  Spain  v.  Gamble,  22  Fed.  Cas. 

[Ill,  E,  14,  a] 


856     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


equivalent  of  a  thing  is,  in  the  sense  of  the  patent  law,  the  same  as  the  thing 
itself.  Two  devices  which  perform  the  same  function  in  substantially  the  same 
way  and  accomplish  substantially  the  same  result  are  therefore  the  same,  although 
they  may  differ  in  name  and  form.93 

b.  Superiority  of  Substituted  Part  No  Test.  The  fact  that  the  substituted  part 
performs  the  function  better  does  not  make  the  act  of  substitution  an  invention,94 
unless  some  new  or  added  function  or  result  is  secured  which  would  not  be  obvious 
to  one  skilled  in  the  art.95 

15.  SUBSTITUTION  OF  MATERIAL.  The  mere  substitution  of  one  material  for 
another  in  an  old  article  where  it  performs  substantially  the  same  functions  is  not 
an  invention,96  although  the  substituted  material  may  be  better  for  the  pur- 


No.  13,199,  McArthur  Pat.  Gas.  35§;  Tread- 
well  v.  Fox,  24  Fed.  Gas.  No.  14,156;  Wood- 
bury  Patent  Planing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Keith,  30 
Fed.  Gas.  No.  17,970,  4  Ban.  &  A.  100  [af- 
firmed in  101  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed.  939] ;  Mil- 
lett  v.  Allen,  115  Off.  Gaz.  1586;  Wisner  v. 
Coulthard,  22  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  178;  Hunter  v. 
Carrick,  11  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  300;  Smith  v. 
Goldie,  9  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  46. 

Substitution  of  bolt  for  screw  not  patent- 
able.  Root  v.  Sontag,  47  Fed.  309. 

Substitution  of  logs  for  rollers  not  inven- 
tion. Woodbury  Patent  Planing-Mach.  Co.  v. 
Keith,  30  Fed.  Gas.  No.  17,970,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
100  [affirmed  in  101  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed. 
939]. 

Substitution  of  screw  for  hand  operated 
paddles  not  invention.  Marchand  v.  Emken, 
132  U.  S.  195,  10  S.  Ct.  65,  33  L.  ed.  332  [af- 
firming 26  Fed.  629,  23  Blatchf.  435]. 

Substitution  of  electric  motor  for  engine 
not  invention.  Shaw  Electric  Crane  Co.  v. 
Shriver,  86  Fed.  466,  30  C.  C.  A.  196. 

Substitution  of  internal  for  external  gears 
not  invention.  Mast  v.  Stover  Mfg.  Co.,  91 
Off.  Gaz.  1239. 

Unless  the  mode  of  operation  is  the  same 
there  is  no  equivalency. —  Conover  v.  Roach, 
6  Fed.  Gas.  No.  3,125,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  12. 

Unexpected  result  shows  lack  of  equiva- 
lency.—  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
New  England  Granite  Co.,  103  Fed.  951. 

Substitution  of  single  element  performing 
function  of  several. —  Where  three  separate 
elements  in  a  patented  device,  each  perform- 
ing an  individual  function,  are  supplanted  in 
another  device  by  a  single  element  which 
itself  performs  the  functions  of  all  three,  the 
threefold  capacity  of  the  single  element  is  not 
the  equivalent  of  the  three  separate  elements. 
Lambert  Hoisting  Engine  Co.  v.  Lidgerwood 
Mfg.  Co.,  154  Fed.  372,  83  C.  C.  A.  350  [modi- 
fying 150  Fed.  364]. 

Mechanical  devices  are  equivalents  when 
skilful  and  experienced  workmen  know  that 
one  will  produce  the  same  result  as  the  other. 
May  17.  Fond  du  Lac  County,  27  Fed.  691; 
Carter  v.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Gas.  No.  2,472,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512;  Johnson  v. 
Root,  13  Fed.  Gas.  No.  7,411,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Gas. 
351. 

What  are  equivalents  illustrated. —  Howard 
v.  Detroit  Stove  Works,  150  U.  S.  164,  14 
S.  Ct.  68,  37  L.  ed.  1039;  Morley  Sewing 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Lancaster,  129  U.  S.  263,  9  S.  Ct. 
299,  32  L.  ed.  715;  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite 

[III,  E,  14.  a] 


Co.  i?.  Davis,  102  U.  S.  222,  26  L.  ed.  149; 
Hyndman  v.  Roots,  97  U.  S.  224,  24  L.  ed. 
975;  Tyler  v.  Boston,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  327,  19 
L.  *d.  93. 

93.  Union  Paper  Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Murphy, 
97  U.  S.  120,  24  L.  ed.  935. 

94.  In  re  McNeil],  20  App.  Gas.    (D.   C.) 
294;    National    Hat-Pouncing    Mach.    Co.    v. 
Hedden,  148  U.  S.  482,  13  S.  Ct.  680,  37  L,  ed. 
529;  Stimpson  v.  Woodman,  10  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
117,  19  L.  ed.  866;  Lyons  v.  Bishop,  95  Fed. 
154;  Parsons  v.  Seelye,  92  Fed.  1005;  Kelly 
v.  Springfield  R.  Co.,  81  Fed.  617  [affirmed  in 
92    Fed.    614,    34    C.    C.    A.    570];    National 
Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stecher  Lith.  Co.,  81 
Fed.  395,  26  C.  C.  A.  448;  Codman  v.  Amia, 
74  Fed.  634,  20  C.  C.  A.  566 ;  Puetz  v.  Brans- 
ford,  31  Fed.  458;   Hutchinson  f.  Meyer,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,957. 

95.  Substitution   of   part   performing   new 
function  may  be  invention.    Mosher  v.  Joyce, 
31  Fed.  557;  Woodward  v.  Dinsmore,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  18,003,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  163. 

Torsional  spring  for  fulcrum  and  coil 
spring  in  telegraph  instrument  is  invention. 
La  Rue  v.  Western  Electric  Co.,  31  Fed.  80, 
24  Blatchf.  392  [affirmed  in  139  U.  S.  601,  11 
S.  Ct.  670,  35  L.  ed.  294]. 

Coil  spring  for  flat  spring  invention.  Bray 
v.  U.  S.  Net,  etc.,  Co.,  70  Fed.  1006. 

96.  Brinkerhoff  v.  Aloe,  146  U.  S.  515,  13 
S.  Ct.  221,  36  L.  ed.  1068;  Gardner  v.  Herz, 
118  U.  S.  180,  6  S.  Ct.  1027,  30  L.  ed.  158; 
Houghton  v.  Whitin  Mach.  Works,  153  Fed. 
740,  83  C.  C.  A.  84 ;  New  York  Belting,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Sierer,  149  Fed.  756   [affirmed  in  158 
Fed.  819]  ;   Drake  Castle  Pressed  Steel  Lug 
Co.  v.  Brownell,  123  Fed.  86,  59  C.  C.  A.  216; 
National  Tooth  Crown  Co.  v.  Macdonald,  117 
Fed.   617;    Union  Hardware   Co.   v.   Selchow, 
112    Fed.    1006;    Billings,    etc.,    Co.    r.    Van 
Wagoner,  etc.,  Hardware   Co.,   98   Fed.   732; 
Kilbourne  v.  W.  Bingham  Co.,  50  Fed.  697, 
1  C.  C.  A.  617   [affirming  47  Fed.  57]  ;  Vul- 
canized   Fiber    Co.    v.   Taylor,    49    Fed.    744; 
Tibbe,   etc.,   Mfg.    Co.    v.    Heineken,   37    Fed. 
686;    National    Sheet-Metal    Roofing    Co.    v. 
Garwood,  35   Fed.  658;   Mott  Iron- Works  v. 
Cassidy,  31  Fed.  47,  24  Blatchf.  289;  Forsch- 
ner  v.  Baumgarten,  26  Fed.  858 ;  Welling  v. 
Crane,   21    Fed.    707;    American    Iron   Co.   v. 
Anglo-American    Roofing    Co.,    16    Fed.    915, 
21  Blatchf.  324;   Palmenbing  v.  Buchholz,   13 
Fed.    672.    21    Blatchf.    162;    Carter    v.    Mes- 
singer,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,478,  11  Blatchf.  34; 
Holbrook   v.   Small,    12   Fed.   Cas.   No.  6,595, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     857 


pose.97  The  rule  applies  even  where  the  material  is  new  and  was  invented  by  the 
one  claiming  the  substitution  as  his  invention.  He  should  claim  the  material  only 
unless  the  act  of  substitution  after  the  production  of  the  material  call  for  inventive 
thought.98  Where,  however,  the  substituted  material  performs  new  functions  and 
its  adaptability  for  the  purpose  was  not  obvious  there  may  be  invention  in  the 
substitution."  And  substitution  may  be  considered  on  the  issue  of  invention 
where  it  makes  possible  changes  in  other  elements  of  a  combination  to  produce 
improved  operation.1 

16.  CHANGE  OF  LOCATION  OF  PARTS.     Ordinarily  changes  of  the  relative  location 
of  parts  without  changing  the  functions  performed  is  not  an  invention.2 

17.  OMISSION  OF  PARTS.3     The  omission  of  a  part  with  a  corresponding  omission 
of  its  function  is  not  invention,4  but  an  omission  of  a  part  with  a  rearrangement 


2  Ban.  &  A.  396,  10  Off.  Gaz.  508;  Mannie 
v.  Everett,  16  Fed.  Gas.  No.  Q-,039;  Rushton 
v.  Crawley,  L.  R.  10  Eq.  522;  Ball  v.  Compton 
Corset  Co..  13  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  469. 

Drawn  metal  for  cast  metal  is  not  inven- 
tion. McKloskey  v.  Du  Bois,  8  Fed.  710,  19 
Blatchf.  205. 

Wood  for  stone  in  pavement  blocks  is  not 
invention.  Phillips  v.  Detroit,  19  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  11,100,  4  Ban.  &  A.  347,  17  Off.  Gaz. 
191  [affirmed  in  111  U.  S.  604,  4  S.  Ct.  580, 
28  L.  ed.  53C]. 

Artificial  honey  is  not  a  mere  substitution 
of  materials  in  real  honey.  In  re  Corbin,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,224,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
521. 

Substitution  of  materials  in  designs  not 
invention.  Post  v.  T.  C.  Richards  Hardware 
Co.,  26  Fed.  618. 

97.  In  re   Cheneau,   5   App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
197;  Gates  Iron  Works  v.  Fraser,  153  U.  S. 
332,  14  S.  Ct.  883,  38  L.  ed.  734   [affirming 
42    Fed.    49] ;    Florsheim    v.    Schilling,    137 
U.  S.  64,  11  S.  Ct.  20,  34  L.  ed.  574;  Hicks 
v.  Kelsey,   18  Wall.    (U.  S.)    670,  21   L.  ed. 
852;  A.  B.  Dick  Co.  v.  Wichelman,  105  Fed. 
629;   Dodge  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ohio  Valley  Pulley 
Works,     101     Fed.     584;     Plastic     Fireproof 
Constr.  Co.  v.   San  Francisco,  97   Fed.   620; 
Strom  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Weir   Frog  Co.,   83   Fed. 
170,   27   C.   C.   A.   502;    Hotchkiss  v.   Green- 
wood, 12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,718,  4  McLean  456,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  730  [affirmed  in  11  How.  248, 
13  L.  ed.  683] ;  In  re  Maynard,  16  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,352,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  536. 

98.  Brigham  v.  Coffin,   149  U.   S.  557,   13 
S.    Ct.    939,    37    L.    ed.    845;    Underwood    v. 
Gerber,  149  U.  S.  224,  13  S.  Ct.  854,  37  L.  ed. 
710. 

99.  Ansonia  Brass,   etc.,   Co.   v.  Electrical 
Supply  Co.,  144  U.  S.  11,  12  S.  Ct.  601,  36 
L.  ed.  327;   Smith  v.  Goodyear  Dental  Vul- 
canite Co.,  93  U.  S.  486,  23  L.  ed.  952 ;  George 
Frost  Co.  17.  Cohn,  119  Fed.  505,  56  C.  C.  A. 
185   [affirming  112  Fed.   1009]  ;  King  v.  An- 
derson, 90   Fed.   500;    Fairbanks  Wood  Rim 
Co.  v.  Moore,  78  Fed.  490 ;  Perkins  v.  Interior 
Lumber  Co.,  51  Fed.  286;  Clarke  v.  Johnson, 
4  Fed.  437,   18  Blatchf.  450;   Spill  v.  Cellu- 
loid Mfg.  Co.,  2  Fed.  707,   18  Blatchf.   190; 
Eso  p.  Adams,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  38a;  Goodyear 
Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Willis,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5.603,  1  Ban.  &  A.  568,  1  Flipp.  388,  7 
Off.  Gaz.  41. 


Substitution  of  carbon  filament  for  plati- 
num is  invention.  Edison  Electric  Light  Co. 
v.  U.  S.  Electric  Lighting  Co.,  52  Fed.  300, 
3  C.  C.  A.  83. 

1.  Houghton  v.  Whitin  Mach.  Works,  153 
Fed.  740,  83  C.  C.  A.  84. 

2.  In  re  Garrett,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)   19; 
Goss   Printing-Press    Co.   v.    Scott,    108    Fed. 
253,  47  C.  C.  A.  302;   Lettelier  v.  Mann,  91 
Fed.  909 ;  Stevenson  Co.  v.  McFassell,  88  Fed. 
278;    Olmsted   v.  Andrews,   77    Fed.   835,   23 
C.    C.   A.    488;    New   Departure    Bell    Co.   v. 
Bevin  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  73  Fed.  459,  19  C.  C.  A. 
534;   Reed  v.  Pomeroy,   71    Fed.  299;    Stutz 
v.  Robson,  54  Fed.  506;  Haughey  v.  Lee,  48 
Fed.    382;    Davis   v.   Parkman,    45    Fed.    693 
[affirmed  in  71  Fed.  961,  18  C.  C.  A.  398]; 
Gorse  v.  Parker,  35   Fed.   129;    Hancock  In- 
spirator Co.  17.  Lelly,  27   Fed.  88;   Dederick 
17.  Whitman  Agricultural  Co.,  26   Fed.  755; 
Phipps  v.  Yost,  26  Fed.  447 ;  Dane  v.  Illinois, 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,558,  3  Biss.   374,  6   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  124,  2  Off.  Gaz.  680;  Gilbert,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Walworth  Mfg.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,418,  2  Ban.  &  A.  271,  9  Off.  Gaz.  746; 
Kirby  v.  Beardsley,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,837,  5 
Blatchf.  438,   3   Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  265;   Marsh 
17.   Dodge,   etc.,  Mfg.   Co.,    16   Fed.   Cas.   No. 
9,115;  Owens  v.  Taylor,  29  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
210;    Taylor   v.   Brandon  Mfg.    Co.,   21    Ont. 
App.  361. 

Mere  reversal  of  parts  is  not  invention. 
In  re  Iwan,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  566;  Pen- 
field  v.  Chambers  Bros.  Co.,  92  Fed.  630,  34 
C.  C.  A.  579;  Sax  17.  Taylor  Iron  Works,  30 
Fed.  835  [affirmed  in  149  U.  S.  485,  13  S.  Ct. 
1051,  37  L.  ed.  964]. 

Making  lower  roll  instead  of  upper  mov- 
able is  not  invention.  Abbott  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Bonn,  51  Fed.  223. 

Changing  location  of  attachment  for  train 
pipes  for  convenience  is  not  invention.  Plumb 
17.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  97  Fed.  645. 

3.  Omission  of  elements  in  infringing  com- 
bination see  infra,  XIII,  A,  6,  h. 

4.  In  re  Butterfield,  23  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
84;    Richards    17.    Chase    Elevator    Co.,    159 
U.  S.  477,  16  S.  Ct.  53,  40  L.  ed.  225 ;  Magin 
v.  Karle,   150  U.   S.   387,   14  S.   Ct.   153,  37 
L.  ed.    1118;    Dececo   Co.   v.   George  E.   Gil- 
christ  Co.,   125  Fed.  293,  60   C.   C.  A.  207; 
Gormully,  etc.,  Mfg.   Co.  17.   Sager  Mfg.  Co., 
87  Fed.  945;  Ferguson  v.  Ed.  Roos  Mfg.  Co., 
71   Fed.  416,   18   C.  C.  A.    162;   Needham  v. 

[HI,  E,  17] 


858     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


of  the  remaining  parts  whereby  the  same  result  is  secured  by  a  less  number  of 
parts  may  be.5 

18.  MAKING  PARTS  INTEGRAL  OR  SEPARATE.     There  is  ordinarily  no  invention  in 
making  solid  castings  in  place  of  attached  parts,6  or  in  making  separately  parts 
before  made  integral.7     The  practice  is  so  well  known  as  to  be  within  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  ordinary  mechanic.8 

19.  MAKING  DEVICE  PORTABLE.     There  is  no  invention  in  merely  making  an  old 
device  in  such  form  that  it  is  portable.9 

20.  COMBINATION  10  —  a.  In  General.    Where  old  elements  are  brought  into  a  new 
relation,  where  by  their  interaction  they  perform  new  functions  and  produce  a 
new  result  there  is  a  patentable  invention.11     But  it  is  not  invention  to  merely 


Washburn,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,082,  1  Ban. 
&  A.  537,  4  Cliff.  254,  7  Off.  Gaz.  649 ;  Stow 
v.  Chicago,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,512,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  83,  8  Biss.  47  [affirmed  in  104  U.  S. 
547,  26  L.  ed.  816]. 

5.  Richards    v.    Chase    Elevator    Co.,    159 
U.  S.  477,  16  S.  Ct.  53,  40  L.  ed.  225;  Magin 
v.  Karle,   150  U.  S.  387,   14  S.  Ct.   153,  37 
L.  ed.  1118;  Lawther  v.  Hamilton,  124  U.  S. 
1,   8    S.   Ct.   342,   31   L.   ed.   325;    Brown  v. 
Huntington    Piano    Co.,    134    Fed.    735,    67 
C.  C.  A.  639   [affirming  131  Fed.  273];  Eck 
v.  Kutz,  132  Fed.  758;  Dececo  Co.  v.  George 
E.    Gilchrist    Co.,    125    Fed.    293;    American 
Graphaphone    Co.    v.    Leeds,    87    Fed.    873; 
Coupe   v.   Weatherhead,    16    Fed.   673;    Stow 
v.  Chicago,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,512,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  83,  8  Biss.  47  [affirmed  in  104  U.  S.  547, 
26  L.  ed.  816]. 

Omission  of  element  of  composition  may 
be  invention.  Tarr  v.  Folsom,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,756,  1  Ban.  &  A.  24,  Holmes  312,  5 
Off.  Gaz.  92. 

6.  Howard    v.    Detroit    Stove    Works,    150 
U.  S.  164,  14  S.  Ct.  68,  37  L.  ed.  1039;  Gen- 
eral  Electric   Co.   v.  Yost  Electric  Mfg.   Co., 
131     Fed.    874;    Eames    v.    Worcester    Poly- 
technic Inst.,   123  Fed.  67,   60  C.  C.  A.  37; 
Lay   v.    Indianapolis    Brush,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co., 
120    Fed.    831,    57    C.    C.    A.    313;    Standard 
Caster,    etc.,    Co.   v.    Caster    Socket    Co.,    113 
Fed.    162,    51    C.    C.    A.    109;     Consolidated 
Electric   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Holtzer,   67    Fed.   907, 
15   C.  C.  A.   63;    Williams   v.  Goodyear  Me- 
tallic Rubber  Shoe  Co.,  54  Ffed.  498,  4  C.  C. 
A.    485;    Kilbourne  v.   W.    Bingham   Co.,   50 
Fed.  697,  1   C.  C.  A.  617    [affirming  47   Fed. 
57] ;    Bothe  v.  Paddock-Hawley  Iron  Co.,  50 
Fed.  536,  1   C.  C.  A.  575. 

Riveted  in  place  of  cast  parts  is  not  pat- 
entable. Johnson  Co.  v.  Pacific  Rolling 
Mills  Co.,  59  Fed.  242. 

Pasting  parts  together  is  not  invention. 
Johnson  v.  Hero  Fruit-Jar  Co.,  55  Fed.  659. 

Swaging  instead  of  casting  is  not  inven- 
tion. Strom  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Weir  Frog  Co.,  75 
Fed.  279  [affirmed  in  83  Fed.  170,  27  C.  C. 
A.  502]. 

Fusing  instead  of  cementing  parts  is  not 
invention.  In  re  Locke,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
314. 

Making  collar  button  in  one  piece  is  pat- 
entable. Krementz  v.  S.  Cottle  Co.,  148  U.  S. 
556,  13  S.  Ct.  719,  37  L.  ed.  558  [reversing 
39  Fed.  323]. 

[HI,  E,  17] 


7.  Making   part    detachable    is    not    inven- 
tion.    Roehr  v.  Bliss,  82  Fed.  445;   Kidd  v. 
Horry,  33  Fed.  712. 

Making  parts  removable  may  be  invention. 
McMichael,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stafford,  105 
Fed.  380. 

8.  In  re   Seabury,   23   App.    Cas.    (D.   C.) 
377. 

9.  Hendy  v.  Golden  State,  etc.,  Iron  Works, 
127  U.  S.  370,  8  S.  Ct.  1275,  32  L.  ed.  207 ; 
Thompson  v.  Boisselier,  114  U.  S.  1,  5  S.  Ct. 
1042,  29  L.  ed.  76;  Atlantic  Works  v.  Brady, 
107  U.  S.  192,  2  S.  Ct.  225,  27  L.  ed.  438; 
Olmsted  v.  Andrews,  77  Fed.  835,  23  C.  C.  A. 
488;  Black  Diamond  Coal  Min.  Co.  v.  Excelsior 
Coal  Co.,  70  Off.  Gaz.  1797.    And  see  Kokomo 
Fence  Machine  Co.  v.  Kitselman,   189  U.  S. 
8    [reversing    108    Fed.    632,    47    C.    C.    A. 
538]. 

10.  Combination  of  parts  of  prior  inven- 
tion as  showing  prior  knowledge  or  use  see 
supra,  III,  C,  4,  i. 

New  combination  as  showing  novelty  of  de- 
vice see  supra,  III,  B,  10. 

11.  Hailes  v.  Van  Wormer,  20  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
353,  22  L.  ed.  241;   Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11 
Wall.    (U.   S.)    516,  20  L.  ed.  33;    Spear  v. 
Keystone  Lantern  Co.,  131  Fed.  879  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  136  Fed.  595,  69  C.  C.  A. 
369]  ;    Perkins   Electric    Switch   Mfg.    Co.   r. 
Buchanan,  129  Fed.  134  [affirmed  in  135  Fed. 
90,  67  C.  C.  A.  564]  ;  L.  A.  Thompson  Scenic 
R.  Co.  v.  Chestnut  Hill  Casino  Co.,  127  Fed. 
698,  62  C.  C.  A.  454;   Brill  v.  North  Jersey 
St.  R.  Co.,   124  Fed.  778   [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  134  Fed.  580,  67  C.  C.  A.  380] ; 
Peters  v.   Union   Biscuit   Co.,    120   Fed.   679 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  125  Fed.  601, 
60  C.  C.  A.  337]  ;  Diamond  Drill,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Kelly,    120   Fed.   295;    Moore   v.   Schaw,    118 
Fed.   602;   Dowagiac  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Minnesota 
Moline  Plow  Co.,  118  Fed.   136,  55  C.  C.  A. 
86;   Consolidated  Rubber  Tire  Co.  v.  Finley 
Rubber   Tire   Co.,    116    Fed.    629;    Dowagiac 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Superior  Drill  Co.,  115  Fed.  886, 
53  C.  C.  A.  36 ;  Nelson  v.  A.  D.  Farmer,  etc., 
Type-Founding  Co.,  95  Fed.  145,  37  C.  C.  A. 
32;  American  Graphophone  Co.  v.  Leeds,  87 
Fed.  873;  Deere  v.  Rock  Island  Plow  Co.,  84 
Fed.  171,  28  C.  C.  A.  308;  Muller  v.  Lodge, 
etc.,  Mach.  Tool  Co.,  77  Fed.  621,  23  C.  C.  A. 
357;  Western  Wheel-Scraper  Co.  t?.  Doinnin, 
77  Fed.  194;  American  Soda-Fountain  Co.  v. 
Green,  75  Fed.  680 ;  Taylor  v.  Sawyer  Spindle 
Co.,  75  Fed.  301,  22  C.  C.  A.  203;  Fisher  v. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     859 


extend  the  use  of  an  old  combination  of  elements,  where  no  new  result  is  produced 
and  no  new  method  of  producing  the  old  result.12 

b.  Lack  of  Novelty  in  Elements  Immaterial.  The  invention  in  such  case  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  novelty  or  lack  of  novelty  in  the  separate  elements,  but 
resides  in  the  particular  way  in  which  the  elements  have  been  combined.13  When 
a  combination  is  claimed  it  is  said  that  there  is  an  implied  concession  that  the 
elements  are  separately  old.14 

e.  Coaetion  of  Elements  Necessary.  It  is  not  necessary  that  each  element 
should  perform  its  own  function  and  also  modify  the  function  performed  by 
every  other,13  but  there  must  be  such  coaction  and  modification  that  a  result  is 


American  Pneumatic  Tool  Co.,  71  Fed.  523, 
18  C.  C.  A.  235  {.affirming  69  Fed.  331]  ;  U.  S. 
Printing  Co.  v.  American  Playing-Card  Co., 
70  Fed.  50 ;  Johnson  v.  Forty  Second  St.,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  499;  Niles  Tool  Co.  v.  Betts 
Mach.  Co.,  27  Fed.  301;  McKesson  v.  Carn- 
rick,  9  Fed.  44,  19  Blatchf.  158;  Brickill  v. 
New  York,  7  Fed.  479,  18  Blatchf.  273;  Mc- 
Millan v.  Rees,  1  Fed.  722;  Ames  v.  Howard, 

I  Fed.  Cas.  No.  326,  1  Robb  Pat.  Gas.  689,  1 
Sumn.  482;  Bailey  Washing,  etc.,  Mach.  Co. 
17.  Lincoln,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  750,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  379;  Blake  v.  Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,504,  6  Blatchf.  195,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  294; 
Gallahue  v.  Butterfield,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,198, 
10  Blatchf.  232,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  203,  2  Off. 
Gaz.    645;    Herring  t\    Nelson,    12   Fed.   Cas. 
No.  6,424,  3  Ban.  &  A.  55,   14  Blatchf.  293, 
12  Off.  Gaz.  753;  Many  v.  Sizer,  16  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    9,056,    1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    17;    Pitts   v. 
Whitman,   19  Fed.   Cas.  No.    11,196,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  189,  2  Story  609;  Roemer  v.  Logo- 
witz,  20  Fed.   Cas.  No.   11,996;    Russell,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mallory,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,166, 
10  Blatchf.  140,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  632,  2  Off. 
Gaz.  495:  Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthies- 
son,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,399,  3  Cliff.  639,  2 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  600;  Woodward  v.  Dinsmore, 
30   Fed.   Cas.   No.    18,003,   4  Fish.  Pat.   Cas. 
163;    Clark    v.    Adie,    2    App.    Cas.    315,    46 
L.  J.  Ch.  585,  36  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  923   [af- 
firming   23    Wkly.    Rep.    898];    Harrison    v. 
Anderston  Foundry  Co.,  1  App.  Cas.  574;  Mur- 
ray v.  Clayten,  L.  R.   7   Ch.   570,  20  Wkly. 
Rep.   649;   Adie  v.   Clark,  3   Ch.  D.    134,  45 
L.  J.  Ch.  228,  35  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  349,  24 
Wkly.  Rep.  1007;  Daw  v.  Eley,  L.  R.  3  Eq. 
496,  36  L.  J.  Ch.  482,   15  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
559;    Newton   v.   Grand   Junction   R.   Co.,   5 
Exch.    331    note,    20   L.    J.   Exch.    427   note; 
Lukie  v.  Robson,  2  Jur.  201;  In  re  Martin, 

3  Wkly.  Rep.  433 ;  Dansereau  v.  Bellemare,  16 
Can.    Sup.    Ct.    180;    Hunter   v.    Carrick,   28 
Grant   Ch.    (U.   C.)    489    [reversed  on   other 
grounds   in    10   Ont.   App.   449    (affirmed  in 

II  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  300)]. 

Addition  of  one  element  to  old  combina- 
tion may  be  patentable.  Buck  v.  Hermance, 

4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,082,  1  Blatchf.  398,  Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  251;    Frink  v.  Petry,  9  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,128,  1  Ban.  &  A.  1,  11  Blatchf.  422,  5 
Off.   Gaz.   201;    Hall  v.   Wiles,    11    Fed.   Cas. 
No.   5,954,   2    Blatchf.    194,    Fish.   Pat.   Rep. 
433. 

Alarm  and  time  recorder  combined  is  pat- 
entable. Municipal  Signal  Co.  v.  Gamewell 
Fire-Alarm  Tel.  Co.,  52  Fed.  459. 


Merely  putting  several  articles  in  one  pack- 
age is  not  invention.  King  v.  Frostel,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,794,  4  Ban.  &  A.  236,  8  Biss. 
510,  16  Off.  Gaz.  956,  8  Reporter  490  [affirmed 
in  109  U.  S.  99,  3  S.  Ct.  85,  27  L.  ed.  870]. 

12.  Voightmann  t*.  Weis,  etc.,  Cornice  Co., 
148  Fed.  848,  78  C.  C.  A.  538  [affirming  133 
Fed.  298] ;  Schweichler  v.  Levinson,  147  Fed. 
704,  78  C.  C.  A.  92. 

13.  Hobbs  v.  Beach,  180  U.  S.  383,  21  S.  Ct. 
409,  45  L.  ed.  586 ;  Seabury  v.  Am  Ende,  152 
U.  S.  561,  14  S.  Ct.  683,  38  L.  ed.  553;  Web- 
ster Loom  Co.  v.  Higgins,  105  U.  S.  580.,  26 
L.  ed.  1177;  Hailes  v.  Van  Wormer,  20  Wall. 
(U.  S.)   353,  22  L.  ed.  241;  Eck  v.  Kutz,  132 
Fed.  758;  Lowrie  v.  H.  A.  Meldrum  Co.,  124 
Fed.  761    [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  130 
Fed.  886,  65  C.  C.  A.  194]  ;  Emerson  Electric 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Van  Nort  Bros.  Electric  Co.,  116 
Fed.   974;   American  Tobacco   Co.  v.   Streat, 
83  Fed.  700,  28   C.  C.  A.   18;   Buck  v.  Her- 
mance, 4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,082,  1  Blatchf.  398, 
Fish.   Pat.   Rep.   251;    Ryan  v.   Goodwin,   21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,186,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  725, 
3   Sumn.  514;   Westlake  v,  Cartter,  29   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,451,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  519,  4  Off. 
Gaz.    636;    Woodman   v.    Stimpson,    30    Fed. 
Cas.  No.    17,979,   3   Fish.   Pat.    Cas.    98    [re- 
versed  on   other   grounds    in    10   Wall.    117, 
19  L.  ed.  866]  ;  Spencer  v.  Jack,  3  De  G.  J. 
&  S.  346,  8  Jur.  N.  S.   1165,   10  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  242,  1  Wkly.  Rep.  114,  68  Eng.  Ch.  262, 
46   Eng.   Reprint   669;    Lister   v.   Leather,   8 
E.  &  B.  1004,  4  Jur.  N.  S.  947,  27  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
295,   92   E.   C.   L.    1004;    Bovill   v.  Moore,   2 
Marsh.   211,   17   Rev.   Rep.   514,  4  E.   C.  L. 
481;   Smith  v.  Goldie,  9   Can.   Sup.  Ct.  46; 
Griffin  v.  Toronto  R.  Co.,  7  Can.  Exch.  411; 
Mitchell  v.  Nancock  Inspirator   Co.,   2   Can. 
Exch.    539;    Toronto   Tel.    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Bell 
Tel.  Co.,  2   Can.  Exch.  495;   Yates  v.  Great 
Western  R.  Co.,  24  Grant  Ch.    (U.  C.)    495; 
Patric   v.   Sylvester,   23   Grant   Ch.    (U.   C.) 
573;   Emery  v.  Iredale,   11  U.  C.  C.  P.  106. 
And  see  supra,  III,  C,  4,  i. 

14.  Hay  v.  S.  F.  Heath  Cycle  Co.,  71  Fed. 
411,  18  C.  C.  A.  157. 

15.  Hailes  v.  Van  Wormer,  20  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
353,   22  L.  ed.   241;    Dayton  Malleable   Iron 
Co.  v.  Forster,  153  Fed.  201 ;  Sanders  v.  Han- 
cock, 128  Fed.  424,  63  C.  C.  A.  166;  American 
St.  Car  Advertising  Co.  t\  Newton  St.  R.  Co., 
82   Fed.  732;   National   Cash-Register  Co.  v. 
American  Cash-Register  Co.,  53   Fed.  367,  3 
C.  C.  A.  559;  Wood  v.  Packer,  17  Fed.  650; 
Strobridge     v.     Landers,     11     Fed.     880,    20 
Blatchf.  73;   Fitch  t?.  Bragg,  8  Fed.  588. 

[Ill,  E,  20,  e] 


860     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


produced  which  is  not  merely  the  sum  of  the  results  produced  by  the  separate 
elements.16 

21.  AGGREGATION  —  a.  In  General.  An  aggregation  is  the  mere  bringing 
together  of  separate  elements  without  changing  the  function  performed  by  them 
or  producing  any  result  other  than  the  added  result  of  the  separate  operation  of 
the  elements  and  is  not  a  patentable  invention.17  A  combination,  to  be  patent- 


16.  Adams  v.  Bellaire  Stamping  Co.,   141 
U.    S.    539,    12    S.    Ct.    66,    35    L.    ed.    849; 
Beecher  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Atwater  Mfg.   Co.,   114 
U.    S.    523,    5    S.    Ct.    1007,    29    L.    ed.    232; 
Voightman  v.   Perkinson,    133   Fed.   934    [af- 
firmed  in    138    Fed.   56,   70   C.    C.   A.   482]; 
Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Ruby  Match  Co.,  127 
Fed.   341;    J.  L.   Mott  Iron   Works   v.   Hoff- 
man, etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  120  Fed.  1019,  56  C.  C.  A. 
151  [affirming  110  Fed.  772]  ;  Goodyear  Tire, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Rubber  Tire  Wheel  Co.,  116  Fed. 
363,  53  C.  C.  A.  583 ;  Parsons  v.  Minneapolis 
Threshing-Mach.  Co.,  106  Fed.  941 ;  St.  Louis 
Car-Coupler  Co.  v.  National  Malleable  Cast- 
ings Co.,  87  Fed.  885,  31  C.  C.  A.  265;  Deere 
v.   Rock   Island   Plow   Co.,   84   Fed.    171,    28 
C.  C.  A.  308;  Beach  v.  Hobbs,  82  Fed.  916; 
American    Soda-Fountain    Co.    v.    Green,    75 
Fed.  680;    Bovvers  i?.  Von  Schmidt,  63   Fed. 
572;    Westinghouse  v.  New  York  Air-Brake 
Co.,   59    Fed.   581;    Brickill   v.   Hartford,   49 
Fed.  372 ;  Railway  Register  Mfg.  Co.  v.  North 
Hudson  Co.   R.   Co.,   24   Fed.   793;    Peard  v. 
Johnson,  23   Fed.   507;    Stutz  v.  Armstrong, 
20  Fed.  843 ;  Clark  Pomace-Holder  Co.  v.  Fer- 
guson, 17  Fed.  79,  21  Blatchf.  376;  Western 
Electric  Mfg.    Co.   v.   Chicago   Electric   Mfg. 
Co.,  14  Fed.  691,  11  Biss.  427;  Hoe  v.  Cottrell, 
1    Fed.    597,    17    Blatchf.    546;    Gallahue    v. 
Butterfield,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,198,  10  Blatchf. 
232,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  203,  2  Off.  Gaz.  645; 
Swift  v.  Whisen,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,700,  2 
Bond  115,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343. 

Simultaneous  operation  of  elements  is  not 
necessary.  Hoffman  v.  Young,  2  Fed.  74; 
Birdsall  v.  McDonald,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,434, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  165,  6  Off.  Gaz.  682;  Forbush  v. 
Cook,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,931,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
668. 

17.  In  re  Seabury,  23  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
377;  In  re  Davenport,  23  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
370;  In  re  Griswold,  9  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  496; 
Richards   v.   Chase   Elevator   Co.,    159   U.   S. 
477,  16  S.  Ct.  53,  40  L.  ed.  225;  Richards  v. 
Chase  Elevator  Co.,  158  U.  S.  299,  15  S.  Ct. 
831,  39  L.  ed.  991;   Palmer  v.  Corning,  156 
U.  S.  342,  15  S.  Ct.  381,  39  L.  ed.  445;  Wright 
v.  Yuengling,  155  U.  S.  47,  15  S.  Ct.   1,  39 
L.  ed.  64;  Giles  v.  Heysinger,  150  U.  S.  627, 
14  S.  Ct.  211,   37   L.  ed.    1204;    Ide  v.  Ball 
Engine  Co.,  149  U.  S.  550,  13  S.  Ct.  941,  37 
L.  ed.   843;    Brinkerhoff  v.  Aloe,    146  U.   S. 
515,  13  S.  Ct.  221,  36  L.  ed.  1068;  Derby  v. 
Thompson,  146  U.  S.  476,  13  S.  Ct.  181,  36 
L.  ed.   1051;   Patent  Clothing  Co.  v.  Glover, 
141  U.  S.  560,   12  S.  Ct.  79,  35  L.  ed.  858; 
Adams  v.  Bellaire  Stamping  Co.,   141  U.   S. 
539,   12  S.  Ct.  66,  35  L.  ed.  849;    duett  v. 
Claflin,  140  U.  S.  180,  11  S.  Ct.  725,  35  L.  ed. 
385;    Union    Edge-Setter    Co.    v.   Keith,    139 
U.   S.    530,    11    S.    Ct.    621,   35    L.   ed.   261; 
Busell   Trimmer    Co.   v.    Stevens,    137   U.    S. 

[Ill,  E,  20,  c] 


423,  11  S.  Ct.  150,  34  L.  ed.  719;  Fond  du 
Lac  County  v.  May,  137  U.  S.  395,  11  S.  Ct. 
98,  34  L.  ed.  714;  Burt  v.  Every,  133  U.  S. 
349,  10  S.  Ct.  394,  33  L.  ed.  647;  Hendy  r. 
Golden  State,  etc.,  Iron  Works,  127  U.  S. 
370,  8  S.  Ct.  1275,  32  L.  ed.  207;  Thatcher 
Heating  Co.  v.  Burtis,  121  U.  S.  286,  7  S.  Ct. 
1034,  30  L.  ed.  942;  Beecher  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Atwater  Mfg.  Co.,  114  U.  S.  523,  5  S.  Ct. 
1007,  29  L.  ed.  232 ;  Bussey  v.  Excelsior  Mfg. 
Co.,  110  U.  S.  131,  4  S.  Ct.  38,  28  L.  ed.  95; 
Pickering  v.  McCullough,  104  U.  S.  310,  26 
L.  ed.  749 ;  Rubber-Coated  Harness  Trimming 
Co.  v.  Welling,  97  U.  S.  7,  24  L.  ed.  942; 
Reckendorfer  v.  Faber,  92  U.  S.  347,  23  L.  ed. 
719;  Hailes  v.  Van  Wormer,  20  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
353,  22  L.  ed.  241 ;  Cameron  Septic  Tank  Co. 
17.  Saratoga  Springs,  151  Fed.  242  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  159  Fed.  453]  ;  Rich  v. 
Baldwin,  133  Fed.  920,  66  C.  C.  A.  464;  West 
Coast  Safety  Faucet  Co.  r.  Jackson  Brewing 
Co.,  117  Fed.  295,  54  C.  C.  A.  533;  Wellman 
t7.  Midland  Steel  Co.,  106  Fed.  221;  Gast  v. 
New  York  Asbestos  Mfg.  Co.,  105  Fed.  68; 
Campbell  Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Duplex 
Prmting-Press  Co.,  101  Fed.  282,  41  C.  C.  A. 
351;  Smith  v.  Maxwell,  93  Fed.  466;  Clisby 
v.  Reese,  88  Fed.  645,  32  C.  C.  A.  80 ;  Osgood 
Dredge  Co.  v.  Metropolitan  Dredging  Co.,  75 
Fed.  670,  21  C.  C.  A.  491;  Office  Specialty 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Globe  Co.,  65  Fed.  599  [affirmed 
in  77  Fed.  465,  23  C.  C.  A.  242]  ;  Deere  v. 
J.  I.  Case  Plow  Works,  56  Fed.  841,  6 
C.  C.  A.  157;  Mott  Iron  Works  Co.  v.  Stand- 
ard Mfg.  Co.,  53  Fed.  819,  4  C.  C.  A.  28; 
Campbell  v.  Bailey,  45  Fed.  564  [affirmed  in 
63  Fed.  463,  11  C.  C.  A.  284];  National 
Progress  Bunching  Mach.  Co.  v.  John  R. 
Williams  Co.,  44  Fed.  190,  12  L.  R.  A.  107; 
Young  v.  Jackson,  43  Fed.  387 ;  Rapid  Service 
Store  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  43  Fed.  249 ;  Richards 
v.  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.,  40  Fed.  165;  Jones 
f.  Clow,  39  Fed.  785;  Schmid  v.  Scovill  Mfg. 
Co.,  37  Fed.  345;  Tower  v.  Bemis,  etc.,  Hard- 
ware, etc.,  Co.,  19  Fed.  498;  Doubleday  v. 
Roess,  11  Fed.  737;  Moffitt  v.  Rogers,  8  Fed. 
147  [affirmed  in  106  U.  S.  423,  1  S.  Ct.  70, 
27  L.  ed.  76]  ;  Double-Pointed  Tack  Co.  v. 
Two  Rivers  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  26,  9  Biss.  258 ; 
Sarven  t7.  Hall,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,369,  9 
Blatchf.  524,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  415,  1  Off. 
Gaz.  437;  Griswold  v.  Seymour,  78  Off.  Gaz. 
482. 

Placing  oil  tank  and  other  receptacles  on 
one  car  not  invention.  Standard  Oil  Co.  v. 
Southern  Pac.  Co.,  54  Fed.  521,  4  C.  C.  A. 
491  [affirming  48  Fed.  109]. 

Window  in  stove  flue  is  mere  aggregation. 
Perry  v.  Co-operative  Foundry  Co.,  12  Fed. 
436,  20  Blatchf.  498. 

Placing  rubber  on  end  of  lead  pencil  is 
aggregation  not  invention.  Reckendorfer  17. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     861 


able,  must  produce  a  different  force,  effect,  or  result  in  the  combined  forces  or 
processes  from  that  given  by  their  separate  parts.18  No  one,  by  bringing  together 
several  old  devices  without  producing  a  new  and  useful  result,  the  joint  product  of 
the  elements  of  the  combination,  and  something  more  than  an  aggregate  of  old 
results,  can  acquire  a  right  to  prevent  others  from  using  the  same  devices,  either 
singly  or  in  other  combinations,  or,  even  if  a  new  and  useful  result  is  obtained, 
can  prevent  others  from  using  some  of  the  devices,  omitting  others,  in  combina- 
tion.19 Superiority  does  not  make  aggregation  patentable.20 

b.  Multiplication  of  Elements.      The  multiplication  of  elements  may  go  on 
indefinitely  without  producing  a  patentable  invention,21  since  no  exercise  of  the 
inventive  faculty  is  involved  in  merely  collecting  at  one  place  or  in  one  machine 
a  lot  of  elements  which  do  not  so  modify  the  actions  of  each  other  as  to  produce  a 
new  result.22 

c.  Novel  Elements.     Novelty  in  one  or  more  of  the  separate  elements  does 
not  justify  a  claim  to  the  collection  of  those  elements  unless  there  is  coaction 
between  them  producing  a  new  result.23     The  novel  element  in  such  case  may  be 
patentable  if  claimed  separately.24 

22.  EVIDENCE  OF  INVENTION  —  a.  Unsuccessful  Efforts  of  Others.  Proof  that 
others  skilled  in  the  art  had  previously  sought  to  accomplish  the  results  of  the 
patented  device  and  that  their  efforts  and  experiments  were  unsuccessful  may  be 
and  ordinarily  is  evidence  that  invention  and  not  mere  judgment  and  skill  was 
required  in  conceiving  and  producing  it.25  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  the 


Faber,  92  U.  S.  347,  23  L.  ed.  719;  Rubber 
Tip  Pencil  Co.  v.  Howard,  20  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
12,102,  9  Blatchf.  490,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  377, 

I  Off.  Gaz.  407  [affirmed  in  20  Wall.  498,  22 
L.  ed.  410]. 

Fire  lighter  attached  to  kindling  wood  is 
not  invention.  Alcott  v.  Young,  1  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  149,  4  Ban.  &  A.  197,  16  Blatchf.  134, 
7  Reporter  552,  16  Off.  Gaz.  403. 

Aggregation  of  door  and  striker  plate. — 
In  re  Forg,  2  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.)  58. 

Aggregation  of  staple  and  washer  see 
Double-Pointed  Tack  Co.  v.  Two  Rivers  Mfg. 
Co.,  109  U.  S.  117,  3  S.  Ct.  105,  27  L.  ed.  877. 

18.  Reckendorfer  v.  Faber,  92  U.  S.  347,  23 
L.  ed.  719. 

19.  Hailes     v.     Van     Wormer,     20     Wall. 
(U.  S.)    353,  22  L.  ed.  241. 

20.  Office    Specialty    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Fenton 
Metallic  Mfg.  Co.,   174  U.  S.  492,  19  S.  Ct. 
641,  43  L.  ed.  1058;  Goodyear  Tire,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Rubber  Tire  Wheel  Co.,  116  Fed.  363,  53 
C.  C.  A.  583.     Aggregation  applies  to  article 
as    well    as    machine.      Antisdel    v.    Chicago 
Hotel  Cabinet  Co.,  89  Fed.  308,  32  C.  C.  A. 
216.    Aggregation  applies  to  designs.    North- 
rup  i?.  Adams,  18  Fed.  Gas.  No.  10,328,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  567,  12  Off.  Gaz.  430. 

21.  Richards    v.    Chase    Elevator    Co.,    158 
U.  S.  299,  15  S.  Ct.  831,  39  L.  ed.  991,  159 
U.  S.  477,  16  S.  Ct.  53,  40  L.  ed.  225. 

22.  Florsheim  v.   Schilling,   137  U.   S.   64, 

II  S.  Ct.  20,  34  L.  ed.  574;  Overweight  Coun- 
terbalance Elevator  Co.  v.  Henry  Vogt  Mach. 
Co.,  102  Fed.  957,  43  C.  C.  A.  80;   Interior 
Lumber    Co.    v.    Perkins,    80    Fed.    528,    25 
C.  C.  A.  613;   Campbell  v.  H.  T.  Conde  Im- 
plement Co.,  74  Fed.  745;   Sugar  Apparatus 
Mfg.  Co.  r.  Yaryan  Mfg.  Co.,  43   Fed.   140; 
Buck  v.  Hermance,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,082,  1 
Blatchf.  398,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  251. 


23.  In  re  McNeill,  20  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
294;    Batten    v.    Clayton,    2    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,105. 

Claim  to  combination  is  an  implied  conces- 
sion that  the  elements  are  separately  old. 
Overweight  Counterbalance  Elevator  Co.  c. 
Improved  Order  of  Red  Men's  Hall  Assoc.,  94 
Fed.  155,  36  C.  C.  A.  125;  Hay  v.  S.  F. 
Heath  Cycle  Co.,  71  Fed.  411,  18  C.  C.  A. 
157. 

24.  Claim  to  combination  protects  all  new 
parts.     Parkes  v.  Stevens,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  36,  22 
L.   T.   Rep.   N.    S.    635,    18   Wkly.   Rep.   233 
[affirmed  in  L.  R.   8   Eq.  358,  38  L.  J.  Ch. 
627,  17  Wkly.  Rep.  846]. 

25.  Gandy  v.  Main  Belting  Co.,  143  U.  S. 
587,  12  S.  Ct.  598,  36  L.  ed.  272;  American 
Graphophone  Co.  v.  Universal  Talking  Mach. 
Mfg.  Co.,  151  Fed.  595,  81  C.  C.  A.  139  [re- 
versing 145  Fed.  636,  643]  ;  Albright  v.  Lang- 
feld,    131    Fed.   473;    Electric   Smelting,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Pittsburg  Reduction  Co.,  125  Fed.  926, 
60  C.  C.  A.  636;  George  Frost  Co.  v.  Cohn, 
119   Fed.  505,  56   C.   C.  A.   185;    Hanifen  v. 
Armitage,   117   Fed.  845;    Star  Brass  Works 
v.    General    Electric    Co.,    Ill    Fed.    398,    49 
C.  C.  A.  409 ;  Tannage  Patent  Co.  v.  Donallan, 
93  Fed.   811;   Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co. 
v.  Winchester  Ave.  R.  Co.,  71  Fed.  192;  Binns 
v.  Zucker,  etc.,   Chemical  Co.,  70   Fed.   711; 
Westinghouse    v.    New   York   Air-Brake    Co., 
59    Fed.    581    [modified   in    63    Fed.    962,    11 
C.  C.  A.  528] ;  Columbia  Chemical  Works  v. 
Rutherford,  58  Fed.  787 ;  Consolidated  Brake- 
Shoe  Co.  v.  Detroit  Steel,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed. 
874;    Niles   Tool-Works   v.   Betts   Mach.   Co., 
27    Fed.   301;    Ward   v.  Grand  Detour  Plow 
Co.,   14  Fed.  696;   Pearl  v.  Ocean  Mills,   19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,876,  2  Ban.   &  A.   469,   11 
Off.  Gaz.  2;  Terry  Clock  Cc%  v.  New  Haven 
Clock  Co.,  23   Fed.   Cas.  No.   13,840,  4  Ban. 

[Ill,  E,  22,  a] 


862     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


scope  of  mechanical  skill  not  being  restricted  to  the  skill  of  any  particular 
mechanic,  it  is  not  conclusive  that  more  than  mechanical  skill  was  involved  in 
producing  a  particular  device,  that,  prior  to  the  application  for  the  patent 
thereon,  a  device  has  been  produced  by  another  person  for  the  same  purpose 
which  was  different  from  and  inferior  to  that  of  the  patent ; 26  and  simultaneous 
suggestion  by  many  is  evidence  that  invention  is  lacking.27 

b.  Supplying  Long-Felt  Want.  A  long-felt  want  and  unsupplied  need  for 
means  accomplishing  the  results  of  the  patented  device  is  evidence  tending  to 
show  that  its  production  called  for  an  exercise  of  the  inventive  faculties.28 

e.  Popularity  of  the  Supposed  Invention.  The  fact  that  the  patented  device 
meets  with  immediate  public  favor  and  displaces  others  for  the  same  purpose  on 
the  market  is  evidence  of  utility  and  some  evidence  of  invention,29  but  will  not  be 


&  A.  121,  17  Off.  Gaz.  909.     Compare  Butler 
v.  Steckel,  27  Fed.  219. 

Conception  of  new  method  involving  differ- 
ent principle. —  Where  an  existing  process  or 
device  discloses  what  appear  to  be  insuper- 
able objections  to  practical  operations,  it  is 
persuasive  evidence  of  invention  that  an 
improver  has  the  foresight  and  courage  to 
break  away  from  such  disclosure  and  con- 
ceive of  some  new  method  involving  a  differ- 
ent principle.  American  Graphophone  Co.  v. 
Universal  Talking  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  151  Fed. 
595,  81  C.  C.  A.  139  [reversing  145  Fed. 
636,  643]. 

26.  Johnson  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  Steel  Co., 

67  Fed.    940    [affirmed   in   70    Fed.    244,    17 
C.  C.  A.  88]. 

27.  Thomson-Houston   Electric    Co.   v.   Lo- 
rain   Steel   Co.,    117    Fed.    249,   54   C.   C.   A. 
281;    Haslem   v.    Pittsburg   Plate-Glass    Co., 

68  Fed.   479;    Bromley   Bros.    Carpet   Co.   v. 
Stewart,  51  Fed.  912. 

28.  Matter     of     Pennock,     1     MacArthur 
(D.  C.)   531;  Seabury  v.  Am  Ende,  152  U.  S. 
561,  14  S.  Ct.  683,  38  L.  ed.  553;  Keystone 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Adams,  151  U.  S.  139,  14  S.  Ct. 
295,  38  L.  ed.  103   [reversing  35  Fed.  579]; 
Brill   v.   North   Jersey  St.   R.   Co.,    124   Fed. 
778   [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  134  Fed. 
580,  67  C.  C.  A.  380] ;  Hale,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Oneonta,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   124  Fed.  514;   Peters 
V.  Union  Biscuit  Co.,  120  Fed.  679  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  125  Fed.  601,  60  C.  C.  A. 
337];    Hallock    v.    Davison,    107    Fed.    482; 
Celluloid  Co.  v.  Arlington  Mfg.  Co.,  85  Fed. 
449;    Steel-Clad    Bath    Co.    v.    Davison,    77 
Fed.  736;   Taylor  v.  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.,  75 
Fed.  301,  22  C.  C.  A.  203  [affirming  69  Fed. 
837] ;  Taylor  Burner  Co.  v.  Diamond,  72  Fed. 
182;  Horn  v.  Bergner,  68  Fed.  428  [affirmed 
in    72    Fed.    687];    Consolidated    Brake-Shoe 
Co.  v.  Detroit  Steel,  etc.,  Co.,  59  Fed.  902; 
Watson  t-.  Stevens,  51   Fed.  757,  2  C.  C.  A. 
500   [reversing  47  Fed.   117]  ;   Electrical  Ac- 
cumulator    Co.   v.   New   York,    etc.,   R.    Co., 
50    Fed.    81;    Guarantee   Trust,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
New    Haven    Gas-Light    Co.,    39    Fed.    268; 
Asmus  v.   Alden,   27    Fed.   684    [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  145  U.  S.  226,  12  S.  Ct.  939, 
36  L.  ed.  685]. 

Increasing  work  performed  by  machine  one 
fourth  shows  invention.  Webster  Loom  Co.  v. 
Higgins,  105  U.  S.  580,  26  L.  ed.  1177. 

Superiority    indicates    invention.      Sawyer 

[III,  E,  22,  a] 


Spindle  Co.  v.  Taylor,  69  Fed.  837  [affirmed 
in  75  Fed.  301,  22  C.  C.  A.  203];  Ex  p. 
Arthur,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  563a;  Judson  r. 
Cope,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  615;  Many  v.  Sizer,  16  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,056,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  17;  Sey- 
mour v.  Marsh,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,687,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  115,  2  Off.  Gaz.  675,  9  Phila. 
(Pa.)  380. 

29.  Fenton  Metallic  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Office  Spe- 
cialty Mfg.  Co.,  12  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  201; 
Olin  v.  Timken,  155  U.  S.  141,  15  S.  Ct.  49, 
39  L.  ed.  100;  Seabury  v.  Am  Ende,  152  U.  S. 
561,  14  S.  Ct.  683,  38  L.  ed.  553;  Keystone 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Adams,  151  U.  S.  139,  14  S.  Ct. 
295,  38  L.  ed.  103;  Duer  v.  Corbin  Cabinet 
Lock  Co.,  149  U.  S.  216,  13  S.  Ct.  850,  37 
L.  ed.  707;  Krementz  v.  S.  Cottle  Co.,  148 
U.  S.  556,  13  S.  Ct.  719',  37  L.  ed.  558;  Grant 
v.  Walter,  148  U.  S.  547,  13  S.  Ct.  699,  37 
L.  ed.  552;  Gandy  v.  Main  Belting  Co.,  143 
U.  S.  587,  12  S.  Ct.  598,  36  L.  ed.  272;  Mc- 
Creary  v.  Pennsylvania  Canal  Co.,  141  U.  S. 
459,  12  S.  Ct.  40,  35  L.  ed.  817;  McClain  v. 
Ortmayer,  141  U.  S.  419,  12  S.  Ct.  76,  35 
L.  ed.  800;  Magowan  v.  New  York  Belting, 
etc.,  Co.,  141  U.  S.  332,  12  S.  Ct.  71,  35  L.  ed. 
781;  Goodyear  Tire,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rubber  Tire 
Wheel  Co.,  116  Fed.  363,  53  C.  C.  A.  583; 
Kinloch  Tel  Co.  v.  Western  Electric  Co.,  113 
Fed.  659,  51  C.  C.  A.  369;  Kalamazoo  R.  Sup- 
ply Co.  v.  Duff  Mfg.  Co.,  113  Fed.  264,  51 
C.  C.  A.  221;  National  Hollow  Brake-Beam 
Co.  v.  Interchangeable  Brake-Beam  Co.,  106 
Fed.  693,  45  C.  C.  A.  544;  Christy  v.  Hygeia 
Pneumatic  Bicycle  Saddle  Co.,  93  Fed.  965, 
36  C.  C.  A.  31;  Stevenson  Co.  v.  McFassell, 
90  Fed.  707,  33  C.  C.  A.  249 ;  Morrin  v.  Law- 
ler,  90  Fed.  285;  Wilkins  Shoe-Button 
Fastener  Co.  v.  Webb,  89  Fed.  982 ;  Allington, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Globe  Co.,  89  Fed.  865; 
Consolidated  Car  Heating  Co.  v.  American 
Electric  Heating  Corp.,  82  Fed.  993;  Taylor 
v.  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.,  75  Fed.  301,  22  C.  C.  A. 
203  [affirming  69  Fed.  837] ;  Dueber  Watch- 
Case  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Robbins,  75  Fed.  17,  21 
C.  C.  A.  198;  Brownson  v.  Dodson-Fisher- 
Brockmann  Co.,  71  Fed.  517;  National  Co.  v. 
Belcher,  68  Fed.  665;  Holmes  v.  Truman,  67 
Fed.  542,  14  C.  C.  A.  517;  Miller  v.  Handley, 
61  Fed.  100;  Saunders  f.  Allen,  60  Fed.  610, 
9  C.  C.  A.  157;  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Habermann  Mfg.  Co.,  53  Fed.  375; 
Featherstone  v.  George  R.  Bidwell  Cycle 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     863 


accepted  as  proof  except  in  cases  of  doubt.30  This  is  because  the  popularity  may 
be  due  to  extensive  advertising  or  other  tilings  than  its  superiority.31 

F.  Statutory  Forfeiture  Regardless  of  Intent  —  l.  IN  GENERAL.  Since 
the  purpose  of  the  patent  system  is  to  secure  for  the  public  of  this  country  a 
knowledge  of  and  the  right  to  use  new  inventions  and  discoveries  the  inventor  is 
required  to  proceed  diligently  in  securing  his  patent  under  penalty  of  a  forfeiture 
of  his  inchoate  right.32  Tliere  are  provisions  in  the  statutes  by  which  this  forfeit- 
ure may  occur  contrary  to  the  inventor's  intent  and  without  his  knowledge.33 

2.  PUBLICATION  Two  YEARS  BEFORE  APPLICATION.  If  the  invention  is  described  in 
a  patent  or  printed  publication  in  this  country  or  abroad,  with  or  without  the 
knowledge  or  consent  of  the  inventor,  more  than  two  years  before  his  application 
for  patent  is  filed,  no  valid  patent  can  issue.84 


Co.,  53  Fed.  113;  Fox  v.  Perkins,  52  Fed. 
205,  3  C.  C.  A.  32;  Watson  v.  Stevens,  51 
Fed.  757,  2  C.  C.  A.  500;  Electrical  Ac- 
cumulator Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  50 
Fed.  81;  Stearns  v.  Phillips,  43  Fed.  792; 
Chicopee  Folding-Box  Co.  v.  Nugent,  41  Fed. 
139  [affirmed  in  51  Fed.  229,  2  C.  C.  A. 
165];  Parker  v.  Dickinson,  38  Fed.  413; 
Palmer  v.  Johnston,  34  Fed.  336;  Good  v. 
Bailey,  33  Fed.  42;  Hill  v.  Biddle,  27  Fed. 
560;  Miller  v.  Pickering,  16  Fed.  540;  West- 
ern Electric  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chicago  Electric 
Mfg.  Co.,  14  Fed.  691,  11  Biss.  427;  Gott- 
fried I?.  Crescent  Brewing  Co.,  13  Fed.  479; 
Lindsay  v.  Stein,  10  Fed.  907,  20  Blatchf. 
370;  Shedd  v.  Washburn,  9  Fed.  904;  Wash- 
burn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Haish,  4  Fed.  900,  10 
Biss.  65;  Strobridge  v.  Lindsay,  2  Fed.  692; 
Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  53,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1;  Birdsall  v.  McDonald,  3 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,434,  1  Ban.  &  A.  165,  6 
Off.  Gaz.  682;  Eames  v.  Cook,  8  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  4,239,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  146;  Judson  v. 
Moore,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,569,  1  Bond  285, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  544 ;  Lorillard  v.  McDowell, 
15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,510,  2  Ban.  &  A.  531,  11 
Off.  Gaz.  640,  13  Phila.  (Pa.)  461;  Schaum 
v.  Baker,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,440;  Stanley 
Works  17.  Sargent,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,289, 
8  Blatchf.  344,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  443. 

Where  the  patent  is  void,  extensive  use  is 
immaterial.  Duer  v.  Corbin  Cabinet  Lock 
Co.,  149  U.  S.  216,  13  S.  Ct.  850,  37  L.  ed. 
707  [affirming  37  Fed.  338]. 

No  extent  of  use  can  cure  the  want  of  in- 
vention or  make  aggregation  patentable. 
Voightmann  v.  Weis,  etc.,  Cornice  Co.,  133 
Fed.  298  [affirmed  in  148  Fed.  848,  78  C.  C.  A. 
538]. 

30.  In  re  Smith,  14  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  181; 
Durham  v.  Seymour,  6  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
78;  Adams  v.  Bellaire  Stamping  Co.,  141 
U.  S.  539,  12  S.  Ct.  66,  35  L.  ed.  849;  Mc- 
Clain  v.  Ortmayer,  141  U.  S.  419,  12  S.  Ct. 
76,  35  L.  ed.  800;  Voightmann  v.  Weis,  etc., 
Cornice  Co.,  148  Fed.  848,  78  C.  C.  A.  538 
[affirming  133  Fed.  298] ;  General  Electric 
Co.  «.  Yost  Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  131  Fed.  874; 
American  Salesbook  Co.  t?.  Carter-Grume  Co., 
125  Fed.  499  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
129  Fed.  1004,  62  C.  C.  A.  679]  ;  American 
Sales  Book  Co.  v.  Bullivant,  117  Fed.  255, 
54  C.  C.  A.  287;  Standard  Caster,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Caster  Socket  Co.,  113  Fed.  162,  51  C.  C.  A. 


109;  Goss  Printing-Press  Co.  v.  Scott,  103 
Fed.  650  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  108 
Fed.  253,  47  C.  C.  A.  302] ;  National  Hollow 
Brake  Beam  Co.  17.  Interchangeable  Brake 
Beam  Co.,  99  Fed.  758;  Lane  v.  Welds,  99 
Fed.  286,  39  C.  C.  A.  528;  Ingraham  Co.  f. 
E.  N.  Welch  Mfg.  Co.,  92  Fed.  1019,  35 
C.  C.  A.  163;  Rubber  Tire  Wheel  Co.  v.  Co- 
lumbia Pneumatic  Wagon  Wheel  Co.,  91  Fed. 
978;  McEwan  Bros.  Co.  v.  McEwan,  91  Fed. 
787;  Perry  v.  Revere  Rubber  Co.,  86  Fed. 
633;  Michigan  Stove  Co.  v.  Fuller-Warren 
Co.,  81  Fed.  376;  Schwarzwaelder  17.  Detroit, 
77  Fed.  886;  Klein  v.  Seattle,  77  Fed.  200, 
23  C.  C.  A.  114  [affirming  63  Fed.  702]  ; 
Consolidated  Electric  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Holtzer, 
67  Fed.  907,  15  C.  C.  A.  63;  Saunders  t\ 
Allen,  60  Fed.  610,  9  C.  C.  A.  157;  Wash- 
burn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  17.  Grinnell  Wire  Co.,  24 
Fed.  23;  Wilson  Packing  Co.  17.  Chicago 
Packing,  etc.,  Co.,  9  Fed.  547,  10  Biss.  559; 
Dion  v.  Dupuis,  12  Quebec  Super.  Ct.  465. 
That  success  is  important  only  in  case 
of  doubt  see  Falk  Mfg.  Co.  17.  Missouri  R. 
Co.,  103  Fed.  295,  43  C.  C.  A.  240. 

31.  Gardner    v.    Herz,    118    U.    S.    180,    6 
S.  Ct.  1027,  30  L.  ed.  158;   Doig  v.  Morgan 
Mach.   Co.,   122   Fed.  460,   59   C.   C.  A.   616; 
Dowagiac    v.    Superior    Drill    Co.,    115    Fed. 
886,  53  C.  C.  A.  36;  Dueber  Watch  Case  Co. 
17.   Robbins,    75    Fed.    17,    21    C.    C.    A.    198 
[reversing  71   Fed.   186] ;   Stahl  17.  Williams, 
64  Fed.  121;  Fox  i?.  Perkins,  52  Fed.  205,  3 
C.    C.    A.    32;    Peoria   Target    Co.    v.    Cleve- 
land   Target    Co.,    47    Fed.    725.      And    see 
Ypsilanti   Dress-Stay  Mfg.   Co.   i?.   Van  Val- 
kenburg,   72    Fed.   277    [affirmed  in   78    Fed. 
926,  24  C.  C.  A.  416],  in  which  it  was  said 
that  popularity  may  be  due  to  workmanship, 
attractive  display,  or  advertising. 

32.  In  re  Mower,    15   App.    Cas.    (D.    C.) 
144;  Mason  V.  Hepburn,  13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
86;  Kendall  17.  Winsor,  21  How.   (U.  S.)  322, 
16  L.  ed.   165;   Eck  v.  Kutz,   132  Fed.  758; 
Campbell  Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.  17.  Duplex 
Printing-Press     Co.,     86     Fed.     315;      Von 
Schmidt  v.  Bowers,  80  Fed.  121,  25  C.  C.  A. 
323;  Matthes  v.  Burt,  114  Off.  Gaz.  764. 

33.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4886;  Blandy 
v.   Griffith,    3    Fed.    Cas.   No.    1,529,   3    Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  609. 

34.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §§  4886,  4920 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.   (1901)   pp.  3382,  3394],  as 
amended  by  Act,  March  3,  1897. 

[HI,  F,  2] 


864     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


3.  FOREIGN  PATENT.     If  the  inventor  first  secures  or  allows  his  representatives 
to  secure  a  patent  upon  the  invention  abroad  on  an  application  filed  more  than 
twelve  months  before  his  application  in  this  country  no  valid  patent  can  issue 
here.35     The  limitation  is  four  months  in  case  of  design  patents.86 

4.  CONCEALMENT  OF  INVENTION.     If  the  inventor  conceals  the  invention   from 
the  public  for  a  long  period  of  time  after  he  lias  perfected  it,  and  in  the  mean 
time  some  other  party  makes  the  invention,  the  invention  becomes  public  prop- 
erty and  cannot  be  patented  by  any  one,37  or  is  to  be  patented  to  the  one  who  was 
really  second  to  invent,  but  first  to  give  to  the  public.88 

5.  DATE  OF  APPLICATION.     The  date  of  application  controlling  in  considering 
public  use  or  sale  and  publication  is  the  date  of  application  in  this  country,39  or 
the  date  of  application  abroad  within  twelve  months  of  the  application  here,  pro- 
vided the  foreign  country  is  a  member  of  the  international  convention  or  has 
similar  treaty  relations  with  this  country.40 

6.  RENEWAL  OR  SUBSTITUTE  APPLICATION.     Where  an  application  here  is  forfeited 
and  renewed,41  or  is  filed  as  a  substitute  for  and  continuation  of  a  prior  applica- 
tion,42 the  original  filing  date  controls  ;  but  to  obtain  the  benefit  of  the  original 


35.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4887   [U.  S. 
Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    3382],    as    amended 
March  3,   1903.     Under  the  act  of  March  3, 
1897,  the   limitation  was  seven  months  and 
that    applies    to    applications    filed    between 
Jan.  1,  1898,  and  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
1903.    In  re  Swinburne,  19  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.) 
565. 

Application  of  statute.— The  act  applies 
only  to  patents  granted  after  Jan.  1,  1898. 
Rubber  Tire  Wheel  Co.  v.  Davie,  100  Fed. 
85;  Pa  trie  v.  Sylvester,  23  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
573. 

36.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4887   [U.  S. 
Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    3382],    as    amended 
March  3,  1903. 

37.  In  re  Mower,    15  App.   Cas.    (D.  C.) 
144;    Bates   v.   Coe,  98   U.   S.   31,  25   L.  ed. 
68;    Consolidated   Fruit  Jar   Co.   v.   Wright, 
94  U.  S.  92,  24  L.  ed.  68 ;  Kindall  v.  Winsor, 
21  How.   (U.  S.)  322,  16  L.  ed.  165;  Ransom 
v.   New    York,    20    Fed.    Cas.    No.    11,573,    1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  252.     The  inventor  may  for- 
feit  his   rights   as   an   inventor  by  a   wilful 
or  negligent  postponement  of  his  claims,  or 
by  an  attempt  to  withhold  the  benefit  of  his 
improvement  from  the  public  until  a  similar 
or    the    same    improvement   shall   have   been 
made  and  introduced  by  others.     Kendall  v. 
Winsor,  21  How.   (U.  S.)   322,  16  L.  ed.  165. 

Where  due  to  poverty,  concealment  and 
failure  to  apply  for  patent  is  not  a  bar. 
Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Crofut,  24  Fed.  796; 
Ayling  v.  Hull,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  686,  2  Cliff. 
494;  Sprague  v.  Adriance,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,248,  3  Ban.  &  A.  124,  14  Off.  Gaz.  308. 

38.  Brown  v.  Blood,  22  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
216;     Thomson    i/.    Weston,     19    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)  373;  Warner  v.  Smith,  13  App.  Cas. 
(D.    C.)    Ill;    Mason  v.   Hepburn,    13   App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)   86;  Berg  v.  Thistle,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    1,337;    Bullock    Printing-Press    Co.    v. 
Jones,  4   Fed.   Cas.  No.  2,132,   3   Ban.  &  A. 
195,    13   Off.   Gaz.    124;    Consolidated   Fruit- 
Jar  Co.  v.  Wright,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,135,  12 
Blatchf.   149,   1   Ban.  &  A.  320,  6  Off.  Gaz. 
327;    Marcy    v.    Trotter,    16    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
9,063;   Snowden  v.  Pierce,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

[HI,  F,  3] 


13,151,  2  Hayw.  &  H.  386;  Spear  v.  Belson, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,223,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
699;  U.  S.  Rifle,  etc.,  Co.  f.  Whitney  Arms 
Co.,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,793,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
493,  14  Blatchf.  94,  11  Off.  Gaz.  373;  Walker 
v.  Forbes,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,069;  Matthes 
v.  Burt,  114  Off.  Gaz.  764. 

39.  Date  of  filing  in  patent  office  and  not 
date  of  execution  controls.     Campbell  v.  Nevr 
York,  35  Fed.  504,  1  L.  R.  A.  48. 

The  English  application  dates  from  pro- 
visional specification.  In  re  Swinburn,  19 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  565. 

40.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4887    [U.  S. 
Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    3382],    as    amended 
March  3,  1903. 

41.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4897    [U.  S. 
Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.   3386];    Cain  t?.   Park, 
14   App.    Cas.    (D     C.)    42;    Ligowski    Clay- 
Pigeon    Co.   v.   American   Clay-Bird    Co.,    34 
Fed.  328. 

The  renewed  application  confers  no  right 
in  addition  to  that  of  the  first  application. — 
It  confers  no  right  as  against  a  prior  in- 
ventor who  happened  to  file  his  application 
subsequent  to  that  of  the  second  inventor. 
At  most  the  first  application  could  only 
acquire  an  inchoate  right  as  against  a  prior 
inventor,  dependent  upon  it  being  made  to 
appear  that  the  first  inventor  had  either 
abandoned  his  invention  or  lost  the  right  to 
it  by  the  want  of  reasonable  diligence  in 
perfecting  it  and  making  application  for  a 
patent.  Christensen  v.  Noyes,  90  Off.  Gaz. 
227. 

42.  Godfrey   v.    Eames,    1    Wall.    (U.    S.) 
317,  17  L.  ed.  684;  Stimpson  v.  West  Chester 
R.  Co.,  4  How.   (U.  S.)   380,  11  L.  ed.  1020; 
L.    E.    Waterman    Co.    v.    McCutcheon,    127 
Fed.  1020,  61  C.  C.  A.  653;  L.  E.  Waterman 
v.     Forsyth,     121.    Fed.     103;     International 
Tooth-Crown  Co.  v.  Richmond,  30  Fed.  775; 
Graham  v.  McCormick,  11  Fed.  859,  10  Biss. 
39;   Bell  v.  Daniels,  3   Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,247, 
1    Bond  212,   1    Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   372;    Bevin 
v.  East  Hampton  Bell  Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,379,   9   Blatchf.  50,  5   Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  23; 
Dental  Vulcanite   Co.  v.   Wetherbee,  7   Fed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     865 


date,  the  renewal  must  be  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  law  ; 43  and  where 
there  is  unreasonable  delay  between  applications,  the  date  of  the  second  controls.44 

7.  DIVISIONAL  APPLICATIONS.     The   principles  stated  in  the  preceding  section 
apply  in  the  case  of  divisional  applications.45 

8.  PRIOR  PUBLIC  USE  OR  SALE  —  a.  As  Bar  to  Patent.     By  the  provisions  of  the 
statutes,  if  the  invention  was  in  public  use  or  on  sale  in  this  country  with  or  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  inventor  more  than  two  years  before  his  application  was 
tiled  the  grant  of  a  patent  is  barred.46     It  must,  however,  have  been  in  public  use 


Cas.  No.  3,810,  2  Cliff.  555,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Gas. 
87;  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Root,  10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,597,  1  Ban.  &  A.  384,  6  Off. 
Gaz.  154;  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v. 
Smith,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,598,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
201,  Holmes  354,  5  Off.  Gaz.  585  [.affirmed 
in  93  U.  S.  486,  23  L.  ed.  952]  ;  Henry  v. 
Francestown  Soapstone  Stove  Co.,  11  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,382,  2  Ban.  &  A.  221,  9  Off.  Gaz. 
408;  Howe  v.  Newton,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,771,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  531;  Johnsen  v.  Fass- 
man,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,365,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  471,  1  Woods  138,  2  Off.  Gaz.  94;  Jones 
v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,495,  3  Cliff. 
563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3  Off.  Gaz.  630; 
Matthews  v.  Wade,  16  Fed.  Cas  No.  9,292, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  143;  Rich  v.  Lippin- 
cott,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,758,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  1,  1  Pittsb.  (Pa.)  31;  Singer  v.  Brauns- 
dorf,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,897,  7  Blatchf.  521; 
Smith  v.  Prior,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,095,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  469,  2  Sawy.  461,  4  Off.  Gaz. 
633;  Weston  v.  White,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,459,  2  Ban.  &  A.  364,  13  Blatchf.  447. 

Withdrawal  due  to  mistake  of  patent 
office  will  not  forfeit  rights.  Hayden  v. 
James,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,260. 

Application  abandoned  before  another  is 
filed  cannot  avail  the  patentee.  Carty  v. 
Kellogg,  7  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  542;  Hayes- 
Young  Tie  Plate  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Transit 
Co.,  130  Fed.  900;  Lindsay  v.  Stein,  10  Fed. 
907,  20  Blatchf.  370;  Bevin  v.  East  Hampton 
Bell  Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,379,  9  Blatchf. 
50,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  23;  Rich  v.  Lippincott, 
20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,758,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1. 

For  excusable  delay  in  renewing  applica- 
tion see  Colgate  v.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,995,  4  Ban.  &  A.  36,  15 
Blatchf.  365,  14  Off.  Gaz.  943;  Goodyear 
Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Willis,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,603,  1  Ban.  &  A.  568,  1  Flipp.  388,  7 
Off.  Gaz.  41;  Howes  v.  McNeal,  12  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,789,  3  Ban.  &  A.  376,  15  Blatchf. 
103,  15  Off.  Gaz.  608. 

43.  Ostergren    v.    Tripler,    17    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    557;    Christensen  v.  Noyes,  90  Off. 
Gaz.  223. 

44.  U.  S.  Rifle,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Whitney  Arms 
Co.,  118  U.  S.  22,  6  S.  Ct.  950,  30  L.  ed.  53; 
Consolidated  Fruit-Jar  Co.  v.  Bellaire  Stamp- 
ing Co.,  27  Fed.  377;  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Berkshire  Nat.  Bank,  26  Fed.  104;  Bevin  v. 
East    Hampton    Bell    Co.,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,379,  9   Blatchf.   50,  5   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.  23; 
Ex    p.    Dedericks,    7    Fed.    Cas.    No.    3,734; 
Ex  p.  Raymond,  20  Fed.   Cas.  No.   ll,592a; 
Wickersham    v.    Singer,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,610,   McArthur   Pat.    Cas.    645. 

[55] 


45.  Stirling  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Brewing  As- 
soc.,   79    Fed.   80;    Dederick  v.   Fox,   56   Fed. 
714;    Frankfort  Whisky  Process   Co.  v.  Mill 
Creek  Distilling  Co.,   37    Fed.   533;    Graham 
v.  Geneva  Lake  Crawford  Mfg.  Co.,   11   Fed. 
138. 

46.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §§  4886,  4920; 
Andrews  v.  Hovey,   123  U.  S.  267,  8   S.  Ct. 
101,  31   L.  ed.   160;    Consolidated  Fruit  Jar 
Co.   v.   Wright,   94   U.   S.   92,   24   L.   ed.   68; 
Lettelier  v.  Mann,  91   Fed.  917;  Hutchinson 
v.    Everett,    26    Fed.    531;    Union   Paper-Bag 
Mach.    Co.    V.    Atlas    Bag    Co.,    6    Fed.    398; 
Arnold    v.    Bishop,     1    Fed.    Cas.    No.    552, 
Cranch   Pat.   Dec.    103,   McArthur  Pat.   Cas. 
27;   Blackinton  v.  Douglass,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,470,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  622;   Cleveland  v. 
Towle,   5   Fed.   Cas.  No.   2,888,   3   Fish.   Pat. 
Cas.  525;   Cowperwaithe  v.  Gill,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    3,298;    Ellithorp    v.    Robertson,    8    Fed. 
Cas.    No.    4,410,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    634; 
Hunt  v.  Howe,   12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,891,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.   Cas.  366;    Justice  v.  Jones,    13 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    7,588,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas. 
635;    Kelleher  v.  Darling,   14   Fed.   Cas.  No. 
7,653,  4  Cliff.  424,  3  Ban.  &  A.  438,  14  Off. 
Gaz.  673;  Lovering  v.  Dutcher,  15  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8,553,   2   Hayw.  &  H.   367;   Manning   v. 
Cape  Ann  Isinglass,  etc.,   Co.,   16   Fed.   Cas. 
No.  9,041,  4  Ban.  &  A.  612,  9  Reporter  337 
[affirmed  in  108  U.  S    462,  2  S.  Ct.  860,  27 
L.  ed.   793];   Monce  v.  Woodworth,   17   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,706,  4  Ban.  &  A.  307,  19  Off.  Gaz. 
998;    Rugg    v.    Haines,    20    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
12,114,  McArthur  Pat.   Cas.  420;   Tappan  v. 
National   Bank-Note    Co.,    24    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
14,100. 

The  rule  is  inflexible  without  regard  to  ex- 
cuses for  delay.  Blandy  v.  Griffith,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,529,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  609;  Sis- 
son  v.  Gilbert,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,912,  9 
Blatchf.  185,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  109.  Contra, 
see  McMillan  v.  Barclay,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,902,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189,  4  Brewst.  (Pa.) 
275. 

The  rule  applies  to  designs  as  well  as  me- 
chanical inventions.  Anderson  v.  Monroe,  55 
Fed.  407;  Anderson  v.  Eiler,  46  Fed.  777 
[affirmed  in  50  Fed.  775,.  1  C.  C.  A.  659] ; 
Theberath  i\  Rubber,  etc.,  Harness  Trimming 
Co.,  15  Fed.  246 ;  In  re  Tournier,  94  Off.  Gaz. 
2166. 

In  England  any  use  by  inventor  or  others 
in  realm  before  patent  is  a  bar.  Househill 
Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Neilson,  9  Cl.  &  F.  788,  8 
Eng.  Reprint  616.  The  use  must  be  public. 
Heath  v.  Smith,  2  C.  L.  R.  1584,  3  E.  &  B. 
256,  18  Jur.  601,  23  L.  J.  Q.  B.  166,  2  Wkly. 
Rep.  200,  77  E.  C.  L.  256;  Caldwell  v.  Van- 

[III,  F,  8,  a] 


866     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


or  on  sale  for  more  than  two  years  prior  to  the  application  to  bar  the  grant  of  a 
patent.47 

b.  Nature  of  Use  Sufficient  to  Bar  Patent  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  The  bar  of 
public  use  arises  from  use  by  the  inventor  himself  or  by  others,48  but  in  either 
case  it  must  be  such  as  makes  the  invention  accessible  to  some  members  of  the 
public.49  Public  use,  however,  does  not  mean  a  general  adoption  or  use  by  the 
public,  but  a  use  in  public,  as  distinguished  from  a  secret  use.50  Exhibition  of  a 
design  is  a  public  use.51 

(n)  SINGLE  INSTANCE  SUFFICIENT.  A  single  instance  of  public  use  by  a 
single  individual  will  operate  as  a  bar.53  General  and  continuous  use  is 
unnecessary.53 

(in)  KNOWLEDGE  OR  CONSENT  OF  THE  INVENTOR.  The  bar  arises  whether 
or  not  the  inventor  knows  of  or  consents  to  the  public  use.54 


vlissengen,  9  Hare  415,  16  Jur.  115,  21  L.  J. 
Ch.  97,  41  Eng.  Ch.  415,  68  Eng.  Reprint 
571;  Carpenter  v.  Smith,  11  L.  J.  Exch. 
213,  9  M.  &  W.  300. 

In  Canada  public  use  with  the  inventor's 
consent  before  application  is  a  bar.  Bona- 
than  v.  Bowmanville  Furniture  Mfg.  Co.,  31 
U.  C.  Q.  B.  413. 

47.  Agawam    Woolen     Co.   v.    Jordan,     7 
Wall.    (U.  S.)    583,  19  L.  ed.  177;   Babcock 
V.  Degener,  2   Fed.   Cas.   No.   698,  McArthur 
Pat.    Cas.    607;    McCormick   v.   Seymour,    15 
Fed.   Cas.   No.   8,726,  2   Blatchf.  240    [modi- 
fied in   16  How.  480,   14  L.  ed    1024];   Mc- 
Millan v.  Barclay,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,902,  5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189,  4  Brewst.  (Pa.)  275;  Mel- 
lus  v.  Silsbee,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,404,  4  Mason 
108,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  506;  Root  v.  Ball,  20 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,035,  4  McLean  177,  2  Robb 
Pat.    Cas.    513;    Sanders    v.   Logan,    21    Fed. 
Cas.    No.    12,295,    2    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    167; 
Sides    v.    Pacific    Mail    Steamship    Co.,    22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,842. 

48.  National   Phonograph   Co.   v.   Lambert 
Co.,  125  Fed.  388   [affirmed  in  142  Fed.  164, 
73  C.  C.  A.  382] ;   Thomson-Houston  Electric 
Co.    v.    Lorain    Steel    Co.,    117    Fed.    249,    54 
C.  C.  A.  281;    Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  19  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    10.941,    1    Robb    Pat.    Cas.    466,    4 
Wash.    538    [affirmed  in   2   Pet.    1,   7   L.   ed. 
327];    Sisson    v.    Gilbert,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
12,912,  9  Blatchf.  185,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  109. 

Where  the  inventor  for  pay  teaches  others 
to  use  the  invention  it  is  public  use.  Inter- 
national Tooth-Crown  Co.  v.  Gaylord,  140 
U.  S.  55,  11  S.  Ct.  716,  35  L.  ed.  347. 

In  England  use  bars  a  patent  in  Scotland. 
Brown  v.  Annandale,  8  Cl.  &  F.  437,  8  Eng. 
Reprint  170;  In  re  Robinson,  5  Moore  P.  C. 
65,  13  Eng.  Reprint  414.  Making  without 
sale  after  application  may  not  constitute  a 
bar.  Betts  v.  Menzies,  5  Jur.  N.  S.  1164, 
28  L.  J.  Q.  B.  361;  Summers  v.  Abell,  15 
Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  532. 

49.  Indiana   Novelty  Mfg.   Co.   v.   Crocker 
Chair  Co.,  90  Fed.  488;  American  Roll-Paper 
Co.  v.  Weston,  59  Fed.   147,  8  C.  C.  A.  56. 

50.  Blackinton    v.    Douglass,    3    Fed.    Cas. 
No.    1,470,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    622;    Elli- 
thorp   v.  Robertson,   8   Fed.   Cas.   No.   4,409, 
McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    585;    Henry    v.    Provi- 
dence Tool  Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,384,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  501,  14  Off.  Gaz.  855;   Hunt  v.  Howe, 

[III,  F,  8,  a] 


12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,891,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
366. 

Use  in  shop  where  the  workmen  are  under 
no  pledge  of  secrecy  is  a  public  use.  Per- 
kins v.  Nashua  Card,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Fed.  451. 

51.  Young  v.   Clipper  Mfg.   Co.,    121    Fed. 
560   [affirmed  in  130  Fed.   150,  64  C.  C.  A. 
502]. 

Exhibition  of  an  experimentally  constructed 
machine  by  the  inventor  to  a  non-paying  au- 
dience is  not  a  public  use.  Victor  Talking 
Mach.  Co.  v.  American  Graphophone  Co.,  140 
Fed.  860  [affirmed  in  145  Fed.  350,  76  C.  C.  A. 
180]. 

52.  Clark  Pomace-Holder  Co.  v.  Ferguson, 
17  Fed.  79,  21  Blatchf.  376;  Jones  v.  Barker, 
11    Fed.    597;    Egbert   v.   Lippmann,    8    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,306,  3  Ban.  &  A.  408,  15  Blatchf. 
295,  14  Off.  Gaz.  822   [affirmed  in  104  U.  S. 
333,  26  L.  ed.  755];  Dalby  v.  Lynes,  71  Off. 
Gaz.    1317;    Worley    v.    Loker    Tobacco    Co., 
21  Off.  Gaz.  559;  Househill  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Neilson,  9  Cl.  &  F.  788,  8  Eng.  Reprint  616; 
Hessin  v.  Coppin,  19  Grant  Ch.   (U.  C.)   629; 
Abell   v.  McPherson,    17   Grant   Ch.    (U.   C.) 
23. 

Three  articles  made  and  used  as  samples 
constitute  a  bar.  Dalby  v.  Lynes,  64  Fed. 
376. 

53.  Flomerfelt  v.  Newwitter,  88  Fed.  696; 
Clisby  v.  Reese,  88  Fed.  645,  32  C.  C.  A.  80. 

54.  In  re  Drawbaugh,  3  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
236;    Andrews   v.   Hovey,    123   U.    S.   267,   8 
S.  Ct.  101,  31  L.  ed.  160;  Kelleher  v.  Darling, 
14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,653,  3  Ban.  &  A.  438,  4 
Cliff.  424,  14  Off.  Gaz.  673. 

In  Canada  public  use  one  year  is  a  bar 
with  or  without  consent.  Patric  r.  Sylvester, 
23  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  573. 

Under  the  former  law,  knowledge  and  con- 
sent were  necessary.  Davis  v.  Fredericks, 
19  Fed.  99,  21  Blatchf.  556;  Emery  v.  Cava- 
nagh,  17  Fed.  242;  Campbell  r.  New  York, 

9  Fed.    500,    35    Fed.    504,    1    L.    R.    A.    48; 
Carroll  v.  Gambrill,  5   Fed.   Cas.  No.  2,454, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  581 ;  Draper  v.  Wattles, 
7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,073,  3  Ban.  &  A.  618,  16 
Off.  Gaz.  629;  Jones  v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,495,  3  Cliff.  563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343, 
3   Off.  Gaz.   630    [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  91  U.  S.  171,  23  L.  ed.  275]  ;  Russell,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mallory,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,166, 

10  Blatchf.    140,    5    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    632,    2 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     867 


(iv)  INVENTION  MUST  BE  COMPLETE.  To  constitute  public  use  the  inven- 
tion must  have  been  complete.55  This  does  not  mean,  however,  that  the  machine 
embodying  it  must  have  been  perfect,  but  merely  that  it  shall  be  sufficiently  per- 
fect to  be  practically  applied  to  its  intended  purpose.56 

(v)  EXPERIMENTAL  USE.  Use  for  purposes  of  experiment  having  in  view 
the  perfection  of  the  invention  is  not  a  public  use,  although  it  occurs  in  public,57 
and  such  experimental  use  may  continue  for  many  years  without  operating  as  a 
bar,58  according  to  the  character  of  the  particular  invention  and  the  time  necessary 
to  develop  and  perfect  it  and  determine  its  practical  efficiency.59 

(vi)  SECRET  USE.  Use  of  the  invention  in  secret  either  by  the  inventor  or 
his  agents  under  an  injunction  of  secrecy  is  not  a  public  use.60  But  permitting 
another  to  use  the  invention  without  any  injunction  of  secrecy  is  public  use, 
although  the  use  may  have  been  concealed  from  others.61 

(vn)  NATURAL  AND  INTENDED  USE.  Use  of  an  invention  in  public,  how- 
ever, in  its  natural  and  intended  way  is  a  public  use,62  although  from  its  nature  it 
is  concealed  from  the  general  view  of  the  public.63 

(vm)   USE  FOR  PROFIT.     When  an  invention  is  used  for  the  purpose  of 


Off.  Gaz.  495;  Ryan  v.  Goodwin,  21  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,186,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  725,  3 
Sumn.  514;  Whitney  V.  Emmett,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,585,  Baldw.  303,  1  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  567;  Wyeth  v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,107,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  23,  1  Story  273. 

55.  Huntington      Dry-Pulverizer      Co.      v. 
Newell    Universal   Mill    Co.,    109    Fed.    269; 
Peeney  v.   Lakeview,   35   Fed.   586;    Graham 
v.    McCormick,    11    Fed.    859,    10    Biss.    39; 
Sanders  v.  Logan,  21   Fed.   Cas.  No.   12,295, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   167,  2  Pittsb.    (Pa.)    241. 

56.  Newark  Mach.  Co.  v.  Hargett,  28  Fed. 
567;    Sanders    v.    Logan,    21    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
12,295,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  167,  2  Pittsb.  (Pa.) 
241. 

57.  Elizabeth  v.  American  Nicholson  Pave- 
ment   Co.,    97    U.    S.    126,    24    L.    ed.    1000; 
American    Caramel    Co.    v.    Mills,    149    Fed. 
743,    79    C.    C.    A.    449    [reversing    138    Fed. 
142] ;   Comptograph  Co.  v.  Universal  Accoun- 
tant Mach.    Co.,    142   Fed.   539    [reversed   on 
other  grounds  in   146  Fed.  9-81,   77   C.  C.  A. 
227];    Thomson-Houston   Electric    Co.   v.   Lo- 
rain   Steel   Co.,    117    Fed.   249,   54   C.    C.   A. 
281;     Westinghouse     Electric,     etc.,     Co.     v. 
Saranac   Lake   Electric   Light   Co.,    108    Fed. 
221;   Pacific  Cable  R.  Co.  v.  Butte  City  St. 
R.  Co.,  55  Fed.  760  [reversed  in  60  Fed.  410, 
9   C.   C.   A.   41]  ;    Eastern   Paper-Bag   Co.   v. 
Standard  Paper-Bag  Co.,   30   Fed.   63;    Rail- 
way Register  Mfg.  Co.  v,  Broadway,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,   22    Fed.   655,   26   Fed.   522;    Birdsall  v. 
McDonald,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No.    1,434,    1    Ban. 
&  A.  1G5,  6  Off.  Gaz.  682;  Jennings  v   Pierce, 
13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,283,  3  Ban.  &  A.  361,  15 
Blatchf.   42;    Jones   v.    Sewall,    13    Fed.   Cas. 
No.    7,495,    3    Cliff.    563,    6    Fish.    Pat.    Cas. 
343,    3    Off.    Gaz.    630;    Locomotive    Engine 
Safety  Truck  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  15 
Fed.    Cas.   No.   8,453,    1    Ban.   &   A.   470,    10 
Blatchf.  292,  6  Off.  Gaz.  927,  1  Wkly.  Notes 
Cas.     (Pa.)     16;    Morris    v.    Huntington,    17 
Fed.   Cas.   No.   9,831,    1    Paine   348,    1    Robb 
Pat.   Cas.   448;    Pitts   v.   Hall,    19   Fed.   Cas. 
No.   11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229,   Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
441;    Stanley   v.    Hewitt,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
13,285;    U.  "S.    Rifle,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Whitney 


Arms  Co.,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,793,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  493,  14  Blatchf.  94,  11  Off.  Gaz.  373 
[affirmed  in  118  U.  S.  22,  6  S.  Ct.  950,  30 
L.  ed.  53] ;  Winans  v.  Schenectady,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,865,  2  Blatchf.  279; 
Wyeth  v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,107,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  23,  1  Story  273;  Morgan  t?. 
Seaward,  1  Jur.  527,  6  L.  J.  Exch.  153, 
M.  &  H.  55,  2  M.  &  W.  544;  Conway  v. 
Ottawa  Electric  R.  Co.,  8  Can.  Exch.  432. 

Unavoidable  disclosure  in  experiments  is 
no  bar.  In  re  Newall,  4  C.  B.  N.  S.  269,  4 
Jur.  N.  S.  562,  27  L.  J.  C.  P.  337,  93  E.  C.  L. 
269;  Bentley  v.  Fleming,  1  C.  &  K.  587,  47 
E.  C.  L.  587;  Hills  v.  London  Gas  Light  Co., 
5  H.  &  N.  312,  29  L.  J.  Exch.  409. 

58.  Use  of  pavement  on  public  street  six 
years  for  experiment  not  public  use.     Eliza- 
beth  v.   American   Nicholson   Pavement   Co., 
97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000. 

59.  Henry  v.  Francestown  Soapstone  Stove 
Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,382,  2  Ban.  &  A.  221, 
9  Off.  Gaz.  408. 

Use  without  inventor's  knowledge  during 
experiments  by  him  is  no  bar.  Campbell  v. 
New  York,  47  Fed.  515. 

60.  Adams  v.  Edwards,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  53, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1;  Hunt  v.  Howe,  12  Fed. 
Cas.   No.   6,891,  McArthur   Pat.   Cas.   366. 

61.  Manning  v.   Cape   Ann   Isinglass,   etc., 
Co.,   108  U.  S.  462,  2  S.  Ct.  860,  27  L.  ed. 
793;  Elizabeth  v.  American  Nicholson  Pave- 
ment Co.,  97  U.  S.   126,  24  L.  ed.  1000. 

62.  Brush    v.    Condit,    132    U.    S.    39,    10 
S.  Ct.  1,  33  L.  ed.  251 ;  Hall  v.  Macneale,  107 
U.  S.  90,  2  S.  Ct.  73,  27  L.  ed.  367 ;  Thomson- 
Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Lorain  Steel  Co.,  110 
Fed.    654    [affirmed    in    117    Fed.    249,    54 
C.   C.   A.   281];    Lettelier   v.  Mann,   91   Fed. 
917. 

Use  in  employer's  factory  is  public  use. 
In  re  Tournier,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  481; 
Worley  v.  Loker  Tobacco  Co.,  104  U.  S.  340, 
26  L.  ed.  821. 

63.  Brush    v.    Condit,    132    U.    S.    39,    19 
S.  Ct.  1,  33  L.  ed.  251 ;  Hall  v.  Macneale,  107 
U.  S.  90,  2  S.  Ct.  73,  27  L.  ed.  367;  Perkins 
v.  Nashua  Card,  etc.,  Co.,  2  Fed.  451. 

[Ill,  F,  8,  b,  (vm)] 


868     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


experiment  it  is  not  rendered  a  public  use  by  the  fact  that  a  profit  was  derived 
from  its  use.64  But  where  protit  was  the  controlling  cause  of  the  use  and  the 
experiment  was  merely  incidental  the  grant  of  a  patent  is  barred.65 

(ix)  USE  IN  A  FOREIGN'  COUNTRY.  Use  abroad  is  not  a  public  use  which 
will  invalidate  a  patent  in  the  United  States.  To  constitute  a  bar  the  use  must 
be  in  this  country.66  In  Canada  public  use  abroad  before  the  invention  by  the 
patentee  invalidates  the  patent.67 

e.  On  Sale  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  An  invention  is  on  sale  when  articles  or 
machines  embodying  it  are  made  and  offered  for  sale  or  are  sold,68  but  an  offer  or 
•agreement  to  make  and  deliver  an  invention  not  already  made  and  tested  does  not 
place  it  on  sale.69  An  assignment  of  the  right  to  secure  a  patent  is  not  placing 
the  invention  on  sale.70 

(n)  SINGLE  SALE  SUFFICIENT.  A  single  unrestricted  sale  is  sufficient  to  con- 
stitute placing  the  invention  on  sale.71 

(in)  OFFER  FOR  SALE.  An  offer  to  sell  articles  previously  made  and  tested 
embodying  the  invention  places  it  on  sale,  although  no  actual  sales  were  made.72 

(iv)  SALE  FOR  EXPERIMENT.  There  may  be  an  actual  sale  without  placing 
the  invention  on  sale  within  the  meaning  of  the  law  where  done  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  an  adequate  test  of  the  invention.73  There  is  a  clear  distinction 
between  sales  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  market  and  sales  to  test  the  invention 


64.  Smith,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sprague,   123 
U.  S.  241),  8  S.  Ct.  122,  31  I*,  ed.  141 ;  Swain 
v.    Holyoke    Mach.    Co.*    109    Fed.    154,    48 
C.   C.   A.   265;    Jennings   v.   Pierce,    13    Fed. 
Gas.  No.  7,283,  3  Ban.  &  A.  361,  15  Blatchf. 
42. 

65.  Root  r.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,   146  U.  S. 
210,   13   S.   Ct.    100,   36   L.  ed.   946;    Smith, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  .Sprague,   123  U.  S.  249,  8 
S.  Ct.  122,  31  L.  ed.  141   [reverting  12  Fed. 
721];  Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Wright, 
94  U.  S.  92,  24  L.  ed.  68. 

66.  U.  S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §  4923   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3396];  Gandy  v.  Main 
Belting  Co.,  143  U.  S.  587,  12  S.  Ct.  598,  36 
L.    ed.    272;    Badische    Anilin,    etc.,    Fabrik 
v.   Kalle,    94    Fed.    163;    American    Sulphite 
Pulp  Co.  t-.  Rowland  Falls  Pulp  Co.,  70  Fed. 
986    [reversed  on  other  grounds   in  80   Fed. 
395,  25  C.  C.  A.  500] ;  Worswick  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Steiger,  17  Fed.  250;  Roemer  r.  Logowitz,  20 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    11,996.     And   see   supra,   III, 
B,  5. 

67.  Vanorman  v.  Leonard,  2  U.  C.  Q.  B. 
72. 

68.  Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Wright, 
94  U.  S.  92,  24  L.  ed.  68;  Swain  v.  Holyoke 
Mach.   Co.,   109    Fed.    154,  48   C.  C.  A.   265; 
Covert  v.  Covert,   106   Fed.   183    [affirmed,  in 
115  Fed.  493,  53  C.  C.  A.  225];   Delemater 
v.    Heath,    58    Fed.    414,    7    C.    C.    A.    279; 
Plimpton  v.  Winslow,  14  Fed.  919;  Kells  v. 
McKenzie,  9  Fed.  284;  Burton  «?.  Greenville, 
3  Fed.  642;  In  re  Mills,   117  Off.  Gaz.  904; 
Smith,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mellon,  66  Off.  Gaz. 
173;    Henry    v.    Francestown    Soapstone    Co., 
17  Off.  Gaz.  569. 

In  Canada  the  rule  is  that  sale  one  year 
before  application  does  not  constitute  a  bar 
unless  the  sale  was  with  the  inventor's  con- 
sent. Patric  v.  Sylvester,  23  Grant.  Ch. 
tU.  C.)  573. 

69.  Sparkman  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,208,  1   Blatchf.  205,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.   110, 

[III,  F,  8,  b,  (VIII)] 


5  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  122;  In  re  Mills,  117  Off. 
Gaz.  904. 

If  something  remains  to  be  done  to  prop- 
erty by  the  vendor,  an  agreement  to  sell  it  is 
merely  executory.  Hatch  v.  Standard  Oil 
Co.,  100  U.  S.  124,  25  L.  ed.  554. 

70.  U.  S.  Electric  Lighting  Co.  v.  Consoli- 
dated Electric  Light  Co.,  33  Fed.  869. 

71.  Swain  v.  Holyoke  Mach.  Co.,  102  Fed. 
910   [affirmed  in   109   Fed.    154,  48   C.  C.  A. 
265];    Delemater   v.    Heath,   58    Fed.   414,   7 
C.  C.  A.  279;  Schneider  v.  Thill,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   12,470a,  5  Ban.  &  A.  565;   In  re  Mills, 
117    Off.    Gaz.    904;    Henry    v.    Francestown 
Soapstone  Co.,    17    Off.   Gaz.   569;    Hessen   v. 
Coppin,   19  Grant  Ch.    (U.  C.)   629;  Abell  v. 
McPherson,  17  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  23. 

72.  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Beat  'Em 
All  Barbed- Wire  Co.,  143  U.  S.  275,  12  S.  Ct. 
443,  36  L.  ed.  154;   Cantrell  v.  Wallick,  117 
U.  S.  689,  6  S.  Ct.  970,  29  L.  ed.  1017;  Coflin 
v.  Ogden,  8  Wall.   (U.  S.)   120,  21  L.  ed.  821; 
Mack    v.    Spencer    Mfg.    Co.,    52    Fed.    819; 
Wright    v.    Postel,    44    Fed.    352;    -duett    f?. 
Clafin,  30  Fed.  921;  Plimpton  v.  Winslow,  14 
Fed.  919;   Washburn  v.  Gould,  29   Fed.  Cas. 
No.    17,214,   3    Story   122,   2   Robb  Pat.   Caa. 
206 ;  Waterman  v.  Thomson,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,260,    2    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    461;    Mullins    v. 
Hart,  3  C.  &  K.  297. 

Leaving  one  article  at  a  store  for  sale 
places  the  invention  on  sale.  Covert  v. 
Covert,  106  Fed.  183  [affirmed  on  othlt 
grounds  in  115  Fed.  493.  44  C.  C.  A.  225]. 

73.  Smith,  etc.,  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Sprague.    ! 
U.  S.  249,  8  S.  Ct.  122,  31  L.  ed.  141  ;  S\\.i 
v.    Holyoke    Mach.    Co.,    109    Fed.    154,     Js 
C.  C.  A.   265;   Delemater  v.   Heath,  58   Fed. 
414,  7  C.  C.  A.  279;  Harmon  v.  Struthera,  43 
led.    437,    57    Fed.    637;    Innis    v.    Oil    City 
Boiler  Works,  22  Fed.  780;   Graham   r.  ( 
nova  Lake  Crawford  Mfg.  Co.,   11   Fed.   13 
In   re   Mills,    117    Off.    Gaz.    904;    Henry      . 
Francestown  Soapstone  Co.,  17  Off.  Gaz.  5G9. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     869 


itself.  The  former  is  a  trader's  and  not  an  inventor's  experiment  and  does  not 
carve  an  exception  out  of  the  statute.74 

(v)  CONDITIONAL  SALE.  The  sale  must  be  absolute  to  constitute  a  bar,  and 
where  the  inventor  retains  a  certain  control  over  the  machine  for  purposes  of  test 
it  is  not  on  sale.75 

(vi)  PERFECTED  INVENTION.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  machine  sold  shall 
be  perfect  or  well  made  mechanically  but  it  is  sufficient  that  it  is  operative.76 

(vn)  BURDEN  OF  PROOF.  The  presumption  is  against  two  years  public  use 
or  sale,  and  the  burden  is  upon  the  one  alleging  it  to  establish  it  by  proof  beyond 
a  reasonable  doubt.77  Where,  however,  the  use  or  sale  is  established  the  burden 
is  upon  the  patentee  to  show  that  it  was  for  experiment.78 

G.  Abandonment  of  Invention — 1.  IN  GENERAL.  The  abandonment  of  an 
invention  is  the  relinquishment  by  the  inventor  of  the  inchoate  right  to  secure  a 
patent  upon  an  invention  made  by  him  and  the  consequent  dedication  of  that 
invention  to  the  free  and  unlimited  use  of  the  public.79  An  invention  may  be 
abandoned  at  any  time  before  or  after  application;80  and  the  right  once  aban- 
doned cannot  be  resumed.81  The  benefit  of  the  abandonment,  however,  inures  to 


74.  Smith,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Mellon,    58 
Fed.  705,  7  C.  C.  A.  439 ;  Consolidated  Fruit- 
Jar  Co.  v.  Wright,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,135,  1 
Ban.  &  A.  320,   12  Blatchf.   149,  6  Off.  Gaz. 
C27   [.affirmed  in  94  U.  S.  92,  24  L.  ed.  68]. 

75.  Swain  v.  Holyoke  Mach.  Co.,  109  Fed. 
154,   48   C.   C.  A.   265;    Delemater  v.   Heath, 
58    Fed.    414,    7    C.    C.    A.    279;    Henry    r. 
Francestown  Soapstone  Co.,  17  Off.  Gaz.  569. 
re  Mills,  117  Off.  Gaz.  904. 

76.  Newark  Mach.  Co.  v.  Hargett,  28  Fed. 
567;   Lyman  v.  Maypole,   19  Fed.  735;   Gra- 
ham v.  McCormick,  11  Fed.  859,  10  Biss.  39; 
American  Hide,   etc.,   Co.   v.  American  Tool, 
etc.,   Co.,    1   Fed.   Cas.   No.  302,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  284,  Holmes  503;  Henry  v.  Franeestown 
Soapstone  Co.,  17  Off.  Gaz.  569. 

77.  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg-.  Co.  v.  Beat  'Em 
All  Barbed-Wire  Co.,  143  U.  S.  275,  12  S.  Ct. 
443,  36  L.  ed.  154;  Albright  V.  Longfeld,  131 
Fed.    473;    Timolat    V.    Philadelphia    Pneu- 
matic   Tool    Co.,    131    Fed.    257;    Durfee    17. 
Bawo,  118  Fed.  853;  Loew  Filter  Co.  v.  Ger- 
man-American  Filter   Co.,    107    Fed.   949,   47 
C.  C.  A.  94 ;  Brown  v.  Zaubitz,  105  Fed.  242 ; 
Flomerfelt  v.  Newwitter,  88  Fed.  696;  Mast 
v.  Dempster  Mill  Mfg.  Co.,  82  Fed.  327,  27 
C.    C.    A.    191;    Kraatz   v.    Tieman,    79    Fed. 
322 ;  Dodge  v.  Post,  76  Fed.  807 ;  Oval  Wood 
Pish  Co.  v.  Sandy  Creek,  N.  Y.  Wood  Mfg. 
Co.,  60  Fed.  285;   Converse  v.  Matthews,  58 
Fed.    246;    Francis   v.    Kirkpatrick,    52    Fed. 
824 ;  Wetherell  v.  Keith,  27  Fed.  364 ;  Adams, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  17.  Rathbone,  26  Fed.  262 ;  Drey- 
fus v.   Schneider,  25   Fed.  481;   Innis  v.  Oil 
City  Boiler  Works,  22  Fed.  780;  Everest  v. 
Buffalo    Lubricating   Oil    Co.,    20    Fed.    848; 
Washburn,    etc.,   Mfg.    Co.    v.   Haish,   4   Fed. 
900,  10  Biss.  65;  American  Hide,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
American  Tool,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  302, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  284,  Holmes  503;  Andrews 
v.  Carmen,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  371,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
277,  13  Blatchf.  307,  9  Off.  Gaz.  1011;  Brown 
v.  Whittemore,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,033,  5  Fish. 
Pat.    Cas.    524,    2    Off.    Gaz.    248;    Jones    v. 
Bewail,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7.495,  3  Cliff.  563, 
6   Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  343,   3   Off.   Gaz.   630    [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  91  U.  S.  171,  23 


L.  ed.  275] ;  Parker  v.  Remhoff,  18  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,747,  3  Ban.  &  A.  550,  17  Blatchf.  206, 
14  Off.  Gaz.  601 ;  Pitts  v.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
441. 

For  proof  held  insufficient  see  Beedle  P. 
Bennett,  122  U.  S.  71,  7  S.  Ct.  1090,  30  L.  ed. 
1074;  Anderson  v.  Monroe,  55  Fed.  396  {re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  58  Fed.  398,  7 
C.  C.  A.  272];  Haughey  v.  Meyer,  48  Fed. 
679 ;  Zinsser  v.  Kremer,  39  Fed.  Ill;  Adams, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rathbone,  26  Fed.  262. 

78.  Smith,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sprague,   123 
U.  S.  249,  8  S.  Ct.  122,  31  L.  ed.  141;  Thom- 
son-Houston Electric  Co.  v.  Lorain  Steel  Co., 
117    Fed.    249,   54    C.    C.   A.    281;    Swain   f. 
Holyoke  Mach.  Co.,  103  Fed.  154,  48  C.  C.  A. 
265,  111  Fed.  408,  49  C.  C.  A.  419;  Lettelier 
17.  Mann,  91  Fed.  917;  In  re  Mills,  117  Off. 
Gaz.    904;    Henry  v.   Francestown  Soapstone 
Co.,  17  Off.  Gaz.  569. 

Insufficient  proof  that  use  was  for  experi- 
ment see  Root  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  146  U.  S. 
210,  13  S.  Ct.  100,  36  L.  ed.  946. 

79.  U.  S    Rifle,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Whitney  Arms 
Co.,  118  U.  S.  22,  6  S.  Ct.  950,  30  L.  ed.  53; 
Woodbury  Patent  Planing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Keith, 
101  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed.  939;    Consolidated 
Fruit  Jar   Co.   v.   Wright,   94   U.    S     92,   24 
L.  ed.  68;  Kendall  v.  Winsor,  21  How.  (U.  S.) 
322,   16  L.  ed.   165;    Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet. 
(U.  S.)  292,  8  L.  ed.  689. 

80.  Woodbury  Patent  Planing  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Keith,  101  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed.  939;  American 
Hide,  etc.,  Splitting,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.  v.  Ameri- 
can Tool,  etc.,   Co.,   1   Fed.   Cas.   No.   302,  4 
Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    284,    Holmes    503;    Pitts    v. 
Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  441. 

An  invention  may  be  abandoned  within  two 
years  before  application  as  well  as  prior  to 
that  time.  Mast  v.  Dempster  Mill  Mfg.  Co., 
71  Fed.  701 ;  Sanders  v.  Logan,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,295,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  167,  2  Pittsb. 
(Pa.)  241. 

81.  McCay  v.  Burr,  6  Pa.  St.  147,  47  Am. 
Dec.  441;    Gill  v.  U.   S.,   160  U.   S.   426,    16 
S.  Ct.  322,  40  L.  ed.  480;  Woodbury  Patent 

[HI,  G,  1] 


870     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


the  public  and  not  to  a  later  inventor.82     Abandonment  to  the  public  is  not 
confined  to  reissues,  but  statute  applies  to  all  parents.83 

2.  QUESTION  OF  INTENT.     Abandonment  involves  a  consideration  of  the  inven- 
tor's intent,  but  the  intent  may  be  presumed  from  conduct  as  well  as  from  words.84 

3.  EXPRESS  ABANDONMENT.     Declarations  by  the  inventor  manifesting  an  intent 
not  to  secure  a  patent  upon  his  invention  amounts  to  abandonment.85 

4.  ABANDONMENT  BY  CONDUCT.     Where  the  inventor  acquiesces  in  the  use  of  his 
invention  by  others  and  his  conduct  is  such  as  to  lead  the  public  to  believe  that 
he  does  not  intend  to  secure  a  patent  he  has  abandoned  it.86     So  the  acceptance 
of  a  patent  with  claims  narrowed  to  exclude  matter  cited  by  the  patent  office  as 
an  anticipation  is  an  abandonment  thereof  to  the  public;87  and  one  who  retires 
from  an  interference  proceeding  and  withdraws  his  claim  for  the  specific  element 
forming  the  subject  of  the  interference  is  thereafter  precluded  from  claiming  such 
element  under  his  patent.88     Publication  is  not  abandonment,89  and  merely  per- 
mitting others  to  use  an  invention  before  application  for  a  patent  does  not  amount 
to  abandonment.90     And  mere  delay  in  applying  for  a  patent  is  not  abandonment.91 


Planing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Keith,  101  U.  S.  479,  25 
L.  ed.  939;  Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v. 
Wright,  94  U.  S.  92,  24  L.  ed.  68;  Kendall  v. 
Winsor,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  322,  16  L.  ed.  165; 
Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet.  (U.  S.)  292,  8  L.  ed. 
689;  Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Pet.  (U.  S.)  218, 
8  L.  ed.  376;  Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Pet. 
(U.  S.)  1,  7  L.  ed.  327;  Holmes  Electric  Pro- 
tective Co.  v.  Metropolitan  Burglar  Alarm 
Co.,  33  Fed.  254;  American  Hide,  etc.,  Split- 
ting, etc.,  Mach.  Co.  v.  American  Tool,  etc., 
Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  302,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Gas. 
284,  Holmes  503;  Batten  v.  Taggert,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,107,  2  Wall.  Jr.  101;  Colt  v.  Massa- 
chusetts Arms  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,030,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  108;  Mellus  v.  Silsbee,  16 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,404,  4  Mason  108,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  506 ;  Ransom  v.  New  York,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,573,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  252;  Whip- 
pie  v.  Baldwin  Mfg.  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,514,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  29;  White  v.  Allen, 

29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,535,  2  Cliff.  224,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  440;  Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,601,  1  Gall.  478,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
40. 

Estoppel. —  Where  an  inventor  has  declared 
a  purpose  to  abandon  his  invention  and  not 
to  take  out  a  patent,  he  will  be  estopped 
from  afterward  asserting  his  rights  as  against 
any  person  who  has  acted  on  the  faith  of 
such  declaration.  Pitts  v.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
441. 

82.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559, 
Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  68 ;  Pickering 
v.  McCullough,    19    Fed.   Cas.   No.    11,121,   3 
Ban.  &  A.  279,  6  Reporter  101,  13  Off.  Gaz. 
818    [affirmed   in   104   U.   S.   310,   26   L.   ed. 
749]  ;  Sturtevant  v.  Greenough,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,579. 

83.  Railway  Register  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Broadway, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Fed.  522. 

84.  Must  be  declaration  or  act  showing  in- 
tent.   Beedle  v.  Bennett,  122  U.  S.  71,  7  S.  Ct. 
1090,  30  L.  ed.  1074;  U.  S.  Rifle,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Whitney  Arms  Co.,  118  U.  S.  22,  6  S.  Ct.  950, 

30  L.  ed.  53;  Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet.   (U.  S.) 
292,  8  L.  ed.  689;  Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Pet. 
(U.  S.)  218,  8  L.  ed.  376;  Burdon  Wire,  etc., 

[HI,  G,  1] 


Co.  v.  Williams,  128  Fed.  927;  Johnsen  v. 
Fassman,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,365,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  471,  1  Woods  138,  2  Off.  Gaz.  94; 
Jones  v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,495,  3 
Cliff.  563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3  Off.  Gaz. 
630;  Pitts  v.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,192,  2 
Blatchf.  229,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  441;  Sayles  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,414, 
1  Biss.  468,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  523. 

85.  Woodbury  Patent  Planing  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Keith,  101  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed.  939;  Johnsen 
v.  Fassman,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,365,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  471,  1  Woods  138,  2  Off.  Gaz.  94; 
Sayles  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,414,  1  Biss.  468,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  523. 

For  declarations  not  amounting  to  aban- 
donment see  Pitts  1;.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  441. 

86.  Mast  v.   Dempster   Mill   Mfg.    Co.,   71 
Fed.  701;    Graver  v.  Weyhrich,  31   Fed.  607 
[affirmed  in  124  U.  S.  196,  8  S.  Ct.  459,  31 
L.  ed.  389]  ;  Carroll  v.  Gambrill,  5  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   2,454;   McArthur  Pat.   Cas.   581;    U.   S. 
Rifle,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Whitney  Arms  Co.,  28  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,793,  2  Ban.  &  A.  493,  14  Blatchf. 
94,  11  Off.  Gaz.  373  [affirmed  in  118  U.  S.  22, 
6  S.  Ct.  950,  30  L.  ed.  53]  ;   Wickersham  v. 
Singer,   29   Fed.   Cas.  No.    17,610,  McArthur 
Pat.    Cas.    645.     And   see   Universal   Adding 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Comptograph  Co.,  146  Fed.  981, 
77  C.  C.  A.  227  [reversing  142  Fed.  539]. 

Acquiescence  in  public  use  may  be  aban- 
donment. Mellus  v.  Silsbee,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,404,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  506,  4  Mason  108; 
Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,941, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  466,  4  Wash.  538  [affirmed 
in  2  Pet.  1,  7  L.  ed.  327]. 

87.  Maier  v.  Bloom,  95  Fed.  159. 

88.  Shoemaker    v.    Merrow,    61    Fed.    945, 
10  C.  C.  A.  181   [reversing  59  Fed.  120]. 

89.  Goodyear    v.    Day,    10    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
5,566. 

90.  McCay  v.  Burr,  6  Pa.  St.  147,  47  Am. 
Dec.  441 ;  Mast  v.  Dempster  Mill  Mfg.  Co.,  82 
Fed.  327,  27  C.  C.  A.  191  [reversing  71  Fed. 
701]  ;   McCormick  v.  Seymour,   15   Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8,726,  2  Blatchf.  240  [reversed  in  part  in 
16  How.  480,  14  L.  ed.  1024]. 

91.  Bates  v.  Coe,  98  U.  S.  31,  25  L.  ed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     871 


5.  NECESSITY  OF  DISCLOSURE  TO  PUBLIC.     There  can  be  no  abandonment  to  the 
public  unless  the  complete  invention  has  been  disclosed  to  the  public.92 

6.  ABANDONED  EXPERIMENTS.     An  abandonment  of  experiments  upon  an  incom- 
plete and  imperfect   invention   is  not   a  dedication    of   that   invention  to  the 

IT        03 

public.93 

7.  FAILURE  TO  CLAIM  IN  PATENT.     What  is  disclosed  in  a  patent  and  not  claimed 
therein  is  presumedly  not  novel  or  is  dedicated  to  the  public  by  the  patentee.94 
The  presumption,  however,  is  rebutted  if  the  patentee  has  another  application 
pending  in  the  patent  office  claiming  it,95  or  if  he  files  such  application  promptly.96 
Matter  erased  from  one  application  and  presented  in  a  second  after  grant  of  a 
patent  is  not  abandoned.97 

8.  ABANDONMENT  OF  APPLICATION.     A  party  may  abandon  a  particular  applica- 
tion for  patent  without  abandoning  the  intent  to  secure  a  patent  at  some  time 


68 ;  Appert  v.  Brownsville  Plate  Glass  Co.,  144 
Fed.  115;  Eck  v.  Kutz,  132  Fed.  758;  Western 
Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry  Electric  Co.,  58  Fed. 
186,  7  C.  C.  A.  164;  U.  S.  Electric  Lighting 
Co.  v.  Consolidated  Electric  Light  Co.,  33  Fed. 
869;  Miller  v.  Smith,  5  Fed.  359;  Birdsall  v. 
McDonald,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,434,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
165,  6  Off.  Gaz.  682;  Heath  v.  Hildreth,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,309;  Knox  v.  Loweree,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,910,  1  Ban.  &  A.  589,  6  Off. 
Gaz.  802 ;  Perry  v.  Cornell,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,002,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  68;  Russell,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  r.  Mallory,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,166, 
10  Blatchf.  140,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  632,  2  Off. 
Gaz.  495;  White  v.  Allen,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,535,  2  Cliff.  224,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  440; 
Yearsley  v.  Brookfield,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,131,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  193. 

Date  of  application  during  experiment  not 
abandonment.  Agawam  Woolen  Co.  v.  Jor- 
dan, 7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  583,  19  L.  ed.  177. 

If  action  is  taken  within  the  time  fixed  by 
statute,  delay  in  prosecution  of  application  in 
patent  office  not  abandonment.  Crown  Cork, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Aluminum  Stopper  Co.,  108  Fed. 
845,  48  C.  C.  A.  72;  Adams  v.  Jones,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  57,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  527,  2  Pittsb. 
(Pa.)  73;  U.  S.  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  79 
Off.  Gaz.  1362. 

Effect  of  intervening  rights. — Long  delay  in 
applying  for  a  patent  where  there  are  inter- 
vening rights  is  abandonment.  Fefel  v. 
Stocker,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  317;  In  re 
Mower,  15  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  144;  Ransom 
v.  New  York,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,573,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  252. 

92.  Bates  v.  Coe,  98  U.  S.  31,  25  L.  ed.  68; 
Ross  v.  Montana  Union  R.  Co.,  45  Fed.  424; 
Miller  v.  Smith,  5  Fed.  359 ;  Babcock  v.  Dege- 
ner,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  698,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
607. 

93.  Crown    Cork,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Aluminum 
Stopper  Co.,   108  Fed.  845,  48  C.  C.  A.  72; 
Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry  Electric  Co., 
58  Fed.  186,  7  C.  C.  A.  164;  Dederick  v.  Fox, 
56  Fed.  714.     And  see  supra,  III,  C,  4,  e. 

94.  In  re  Millett,    18   App.   Cas.    (D.    C.) 
186;  Richards  v.  Chase  Elevator  Co.,  159  U.  S. 
477,  16  S.  Ct.  53,  40  L.  ed.  225;  Deering  v. 
Winona  Harvester  Works,  155  U.  S.  286,  15 
S.   Ct.   118,   39   L.  ed.    153;   McClain  v.   Ort- 
mayer,  141  U.  S.  419,  12  S.  Ct.  76,  35  L.  ed. 
800;   Yale  Lock  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Berkshire  Nat. 


Bank,  135  U.  S.  342,  10  S.  Ct.  884,  34  L.  ed. 
168;  Parker,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Yale  Clock  Co.,  123 
U.  S.  87,  8  S.  Ct.  38,  31  L.  ed.  100;  Mahn  v. 
Harwood,  112  U.  S.  354,  5  S.  Ct.  174,  6 
S.  Ct.  451,  28  L.  ed.  665;  Miller  v.  Bridge- 
port Brass  Co.,  104  U.  S.  350,  26  L.  ed.  78-3 ; 
Ide  v.  Trorlicht,  etc.,  Carpet  Co.,  115  Fed. 
137,  53  C.  C.  A.  341;  Campbell  v.  H.  T. 
Conde  Implement  Co.,  74  Fed.  745;  McBride 
v.  Kingman,  72  Fed.  908;  Holmes  Electric 
Protective  Co.  v.  Metropolitan  Burglar  Alarm 
Co.,  33  Fed.  254;  Swift  v.  Jenks,  19  Fed. 
641 ;  Batten  v.  Taggert,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,107, 
2  Wall.  Jr.  101  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  17  How.  74,  15  L.  ed.  37]. 

A  claim  to  a  specific  combination  and  a 
failure  to  claim  other  combinations  apparent 
on  the  face  of  the  patent  is  a  dedication  of 
them  to  the  public.  Bantz  v.  Frantz,  105 
U.  S.  160,  26  L.  ed.  1013;  Miller  v.  Bridge- 
port Brass  Co.,  104  U.  S.  350,  26  L.  ed.  783 ; 
Fassett  v.  Ewart  Mfg.  Co.,  58  Fed.  360  [af- 
firmed in  62  Fed.  404,  10  C.  C.  A.  441]. 

Claim  to  a  combination  is  held  to  amount 
to  a  disclaimer  of  the  separate  elements. 
Wells  v.  Curtis,  66  Fed.  318,  13  C.  C.  A. 
494;  Rowell  v.  Lindsay,  6  Fed.  290,  10  Biss. 
217  [affirmed  in  113  U.  S.  97,  5  S.  Ct.  507, 
28  L.  ed.  906]. 

Mere  disclosure  without  claim  will  not  pre- 
vent subsequent  patent.  Vermont  Farm 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Marble,  19  Fed.  307;  Graham 
17.  Geneva  Lake  Crawford  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed. 
138. 

Description  of  process  in  machine  patent 
is  not  abandonment.  Eastern  Paper-Bag  Co. 
17.  Nixon,  35  Fed.  752;  Eastern  Paper-Bag 
Co.  v.  Standard  Paper-Bag  Co.,  30  Fed.  63. 

95.  Miller    v.   Eagle   Mfg.    Co.,    151    U.    S. 
186,  14  S.  Ct.  310,  38  L.  ed.  121 ;  Suffolk  Mfg. 
Co.  t7.  Hayden,  3  Wall.  (U.  S.)  315,  18  L.  ed. 
76;    Kinnear   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Wilson,    142   Fed. 
970,  74  C.  C.  A.  232;   Victor  Talking  Mach. 
Co.  v.  American  Graphophone   Co.,   140  Fed. 
860    [affirmed  in   145   Fed.   350,   76   C.  C.  A. 
180] ;    Electrical    Accumulator    Co.    V.   Brush 
Electric   Co.,   52   Fed.    130,  2   C.   C.   A.   682; 
Singer  v.  Braunsdorf,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,897, 
7  Blatchf.  521. 

96.  Dederick  v.  Fox,  56  Fed.  714;  Graham 
t\  McCormick,  11  Fed.  859,  10  Biss.  39. 

97.  Sugar  Apparatus  Mfg.   Co.   17.  Yaryan 
Mfg.  Co.,  43  Fed.  140. 

[HI,  G,  8] 


872     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


and  therefore  without  abandoning  the  invention  claimed  therein.  He  may 
file  a  subsequent  application  and  secure  a  patent.98  Nevertheless  where  an 
application  for  a  patent  has  been  filed  and  withdrawn,  lapse  of  time  is  a  fact 
which  may  give  great  point  and  force  to  testimony  disclosing  what  was  done  in 
the  interval." 

9.  EVIDENCE  OF  ABANDONMENT.  Abandonment  is  never  presumed  ; 1  on  the 
contrary  the  presumption  is  against  abandonment  and  the  burden  is  upon  the  one 
asserting  it  to  prove  it  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.2  The  issue  of  letters  patent  is 
prima  facie  evidence  that  there  has  been  no  abandonment.3  Where  the  evi- 
dence raises  a  presumption  of  abandonment,  it  may  be  rebutted  by  showing  acts 
prosecuting  or  asserting  the  discovery,  as  the  filing  of  drawings  in  the  patent 
office.4  Where  the  undisputed  acts  of  an  inventor  furnish  evidence  of  abandon- 
ment, his  testimony  that  he  did  not  intend  to  abandon  his  invention  is  not  entitled 
to  much  weight.5 

IV.  PERSONS  ENTITLED  TO  PATENTS/ 

A.  Original  and  First  Inventor7—!.  IN  GENERAL.  No  valid  patent  can 
issue  in  the  United  States  except  upon  the  application  of  a  person  who  made  the 
invention  by  his  own  original  thought,8  or  if  he  is  dead  upon  the  application  of 
his  executor  or  administrator.9  As  between  two  original  inventors  of  the  same 
thing,  the  one  first  to  make  it  in  this  country  or  bring  it  to  this  country  is 


98.  Edison  v.  American  Mutoscope  Co.,  110 
Fed.  660  [reversed  in  114  Fed.  926,  52  C.  C.  A. 
546]  ;  Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry  Electric 
Co.,  58  Fed.  186,  7  C.  C.  A.  164 ;  Dederick  v. 
Fox,  56  Fed.  714;  Lindsay  v.  Stein,  10  Fed. 
907,  20  Blatchf.  370. 

Abandonment  of  application  and  at  the  same 
time  filing  a  new  application  is  not  an  aban- 
donment of  the  invention.  Dederick  v.  Fox, 
56  Fed.  714. 

99.  Consolidated  Fruit  Jar  Co.  v.  Bellaire 
Stamping  Co.,  27  Fed.  377. 

1.  American     Hide,     etc.,     Splitting,     etc., 
Mach.  Co.  v.  American  Tool,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  302,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  284,  Holmes 
503 ;   Johnsen  v.  Fassman,   13  Fed.   Cas.  No. 
7,365,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  471,  1  Woods  138,  2 
Off.  Gaz.  94. 

2.  Computing  Scale  Co.  v.  Automatic  Scale 
Co.,  26  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    238   [affirmed  in 
204  U.  S.  609,  27  S.  Ct.  307,  51  L.  ed.  645]  ; 
Ide  v.  Trorlicht,  etc.,   Carpet   Co.,    115   Fed. 
137,  53  C.  C.  A.  341 ;  Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.  t\ 
Aluminum    Stopper    Co.,    108    Fed.    845,    48 
C.  C.  A.  72 ;  Jones  v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,495,  3  Cliff.  563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3  Off. 
Gaz.   630    [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  91 
U.  S.  171,  23  L.  ed.  275]  ;  McCormick  v.  Sey- 
mour, 15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,726,  2  Blatchf.  240; 
McMillin  v.  Barclay,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,902, 
5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189,  4  Brewst.    (Pa.)    275. 
And    see    Rolfe    v.    Hoffman,    26    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)   336. 

3.  Johnsen   v.  Fassman,   13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,365,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  471,  1  Woods  138,  2 
Off.  Gaz.  94. 

4.  Emerson  v.  Hogg,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,440, 
2  Blatchf.  1,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  77. 

5.  Bevin  v.  East  Hampton  Bell  Co.,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.    1,379,  9   Blatchf.  50,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  23. 

6.  Right  to  extension  of  patent  see  infra, 
VII,  B. 

[HI,  G,  8] 


Right  to  reissues  see  infra,  VIII. 

7.  Competency    of    witnesses    on    issue    of 
priority  see  WITNESSES. 

Prior  public  use  or  sale  in  general  see  supra, 
III,  F,  8. 

8.  U.   S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §    4895    [U.   S. 
Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    3385];     Kennedy    v. 
Hazelton,  128  U.  S.  667,  9  S.  Ct.  202,  32  L.  ed. 
576;    Haselden   v.    Ogden,    11    Fed.   Cas.   No. 
6,190,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  378;  Stearns  v.  Davis, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,338,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
696. 

Introducer. —  Must  be  inventor  not  intro- 
ducer. Livingston  v.  Van  Ingen,  9  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  507;  American  Sulphite  Pulp  Co.  v, 
Howland  Falls  Pulp  Co.,  70  Fed.  986  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  80  Fed.  395,  25 
C.  C.  A.  500]. 

User. —  Must  be  inventor  and  not  mere 
user.  In  re  Honiball,  9  Moore  P.  C.  378,  14 
Eng.  Reprint  340. 

Contracts  as  to  ownership  cannot  affect 
the  question  of  inventorship.  Tyler  r.  Kelch, 
19  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  180;  Hunt  v.  McCaslin, 
10  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  527. 

Abandonment  of  the  right  to  a  patent  by 
the  original  inventor  does  not  entitle  another 
to  a  patent  therefor.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  8  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,559,  Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  68;  Pickering  v.  McCullough,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,121,  3  Ban.  &  A.  279,  6  Reporter 
101,  13  Off.  Gaz.  818  [affirmed  in  104  U.  S. 
310,  26  L.  ed.  749]. 

In  Canada  the  applicant  must  be  the  origi- 
nal inventor.  Smith  v.  Goldie,  9  Can.  Sup. 
Ct.  46;  American  Dunlop  Tire  Co.  v.  Goold 
Bicycle  Co.,  6  Can.  Exoh.  223. 

9.  U.    S.   Rev.    St.    (1878)    §    4896;    Do   la 
Vergne  Refrigerating  Mach.   Co.  v.  Feather- 
stone,  147  U.  S.  209,  13  S.  Ct.  283,  37  L.  ed. 
138;  Eagleton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  West  Bradley,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  Ill  U.  S.  490,  4  S.  Ct.  593,  28  L.  ed. 
493. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     873 


entitled  to  the  patent.10     A  patent  granted  upon  the  application  of  one  who  is 
not  the  inventor  is  void.11 

2.  FIRST  INVENTOR.     The  first  inventor  is  the  one  who  first  has  a  mental  con- 
ception of  the  invention  provided  he  exercises  diligence  thereafter  in  adapting 
and  perfecting  it,  bat  as  against  a  rival  claimant  who  first  reduced  the  invention 
to  practice  the  burden  is  upon  the  first  conceiver  to  show  diligence.12     The  party 
first  to  reduce  to  practice  is  prima  facie  the  first  inventor;13  but  the  man  who 
first  conceives  and  in  a  mental  sense  first  invents  a  machine,  art,  or  composition  of 
matter  may  date  his  particular  invention  back  to  the  time  of  its  conception,  if 
he  connects  the  conception  with  its  reduction  to  practice  by  reasonable  diligence 
on  his  part  so  that  they  are  substantially  one  continuous  act.14 

3.  ORIGINALITY  OF  INVENTION.     A  person  is  not  an  original  inventor  unless  the 
ideas  embodied  in  the  invention  originated  in  the  creative  faculties  of  his  mind. 
If  he  merely  adapts  and  gives  effect  to  the  ideas  of  others  he  is  not  an  original 
inventor  and  is  not  entitled  to  obtain  a  patent.15 


10.  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  217,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  530,  2  Woodb.  &  M.  121;  Bed- 
ford v.  Hunt,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,217,  1  Mason 
302,   1   Robb  Pat.   Cas.   148;   Eames  v.  Rich- 
ards, 8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,240;  Gibbs  v.  Johnson, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,384;  Goodyear  v.  Day,  10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,569,  2  Wall.  Jr.  283 ;  Hayden 
v.  Suffolk  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,261,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  86  [affirmed  in  3  Wall.  315,  18 
L.  ed.  76] ;  Lowell  v.  Lewis,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,568,   1   Mason   182,    1   Robb  Pat.  Cas.   131; 
Reed   r.   Cutter,  20   Fed.   Cas.   No.    11,645,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  81,  1  Story  590;  Woodcock  v. 
Parker,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,971,  1  Gall.  438, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  37;  Yearsley  v.  Brookfield, 
30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,131,  Me  Arthur  Pat.  Cas. 
193.    And  see  infra,  V,  C,  8,  a. 

Agreement  of  parties. —  Rights  cannot  be 
changed  by  agreement  between  parties.  New 
Departure  Bell  Co.  v.  Corbin,  88  Fed.  901. 

First  inventor  and  not  the  first  applicant 
for  a  patent  is  the  one  entitled  to  the  patent. 
Pacific  Cable  R.  Co.  t\  Butte  City  St.  R.  Co., 
58  Fed.  420. 

Foreign  inventors  applying  for  a  patent 
here,  and  who  are  placed  in  interference,  are 
entitled  under  the  law  to  claim  the  date  they 
communicated  their  invention  here  as  the 
date  of  their  conception,  and  the  date  of  the 
filing  of  their  application  here  as  the  date 
of  their  constructive  reduction  to  practice. 
Harris  v.  Stern,  22  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  164. 

In  England  the  first  to  secure  a  patent  is 
the  first  inventor,  although  the  last  to  file 
application.  Ex  p.  Bates,  "L.  R.  4  Ch.  577,  38 
L.  J.  Ch.  501,  21  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  410,  17 
Wkly.  Rep.  900. 

11.  Kennedy  v.  Hazelton,  128  U.  S.  667,  9 
S.  Ct.  202,  32  L.  ed.  576. 

12.  U.    S.   Rev.    St.    (1878)     §    4920;    Hil- 
lard  v.  Brooks,  23  App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    526; 
Liberman  v.  Williams,  23  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
223;  Paul  v.  Johnson,  23  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
187;   Funk  v.  Haines,  20  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
285;  Silverman  v.  Dendrickson,  19  App.  Cas. 

(D.  C.)  381;  Yates  v.  Huson,  8  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  93;  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Roberts,  125  Fed.  6 ;  Christie  v.  Seybold,  55 
Fed.  69,  5  C.  C.  A.  33 ;  Electric  R.  Signal  Co. 
v.  Hall  R.  Signal  Co.,  6  Fed.  603  [affirmed 
in  114  U.  S.  87,  5  S.  Ct,  1069,  29  L.  ed.  96]  ; 


Kneeland  v.  Sheriff,  2  Fed.  901 ;  Chandler  v. 
Ladd,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,593,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  493 ;  Davidson  v.  Lewis,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,606,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  599;  Draper  v. 
Potomska  Mills  Corp.,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,072, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  214,  13  Off.  Gaz.  276;  Heath  v. 
Hildreth,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,309,  Cranch  Pat. 
Dec.  96,  132,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  12;  Hicks 
v.  Shaver,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,462;  'Hill  v. 
Dunklee,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,489,  McArthur 
Pat.  Cas.  475;  Marshall  v.  Mee,  16  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,129,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  229;  Mix  v. 
Perkins,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,677;  Reed  v.  Cut- 
ter, 20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,645,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
81,  1  Story  590;  Stephens  v.  Salisbury,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,369,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
379;  Taylor  v.  Archer,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,778,  18  Blatchf.  315,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
449;  White  v.  Allen,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,535, 
2  Cliff.  224,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  440.  And  see 
infra,  IV,  A,  6. 

13.  Standard  Cartridge  Co.  v.  Peters  Cart- 
ridge Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23  C.  C.  A.  367   [af- 
firming 69  Fed.  408] ;  Warner  v.  Goodyear,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,183,  Cranch  Pat.  Dec.  125, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  60. 

14.  Christie    v.    Seybold,    55    Fed.    69,    5 
C.   C.   A.   33;   Reed  v.   Cutter,   20   Fed.   Cas. 
No.    11,645,   2   Robb   Pat.    Cas.   81,    1    Story 
590.     And  see  cases  cited  supra,  note   12. 

15.  Greenwood    v.    Dover,    23    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    251;   Soley  v.  Hebbard,  5  App.  Cas. 
( D.  C. )   99  ;  Standard  Cartridge  Co.  v.  Peters' 
Cartridge  Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23  C.'  C.  A.  367; 
Alden  v.  Dewey,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  153,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  17,  1  Story  336 ;  Burrows  v.  Weth- 
erill,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,208,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  315;  Stearns  v.  Davis,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,338,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  696. 

Suggestion  of  result  but  not  means  does 
not  constitute  invention.  Streat  v.  White, 
35  Fed.  426;  Bell  v.  Daniels,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,247,  1  Bond  212,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  372; 
Judson  t\  Moore,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,569,  1 
Bond  285,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  544. 

Suggestion  of  some  features  by  another 
than  the  patentee  will  not  invalidate  the  pat- 
ent. Corser  r.  Brattleboro  Overall  Co.,  93 
Fed.  807;  Pitts  v.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
441. 

[IV,  A,  3] 


874     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


4.  CITIZENSHIP  OF  INVENTOR.     In  the  United  States  there  is  no  limitation  as  to 
the  residence,  citizenship,  or  age  of  the  patentee,  since  any  and  all  persons  from 
any  and  all  countries  may  secure  patents  upon  exactly  the  same  conditions,16  and 
the  same  rule  obtains  in  England.17 

5.  REDUCTION  TO  PRACTICE  —  a.  In  General.     An  invention  is  reduced  to  prac- 
tice when  a  mechanical  embodiment  of  it  is  made  in  such  form  and  so  far  per- 
fected as  to  be  capable  of  practical  and  successful  use.18     Mechanical  perfection 


The  true  test  to  determine  whether  sugges- 
tions made  to  an  inventor  should  deprive 
him  of  the  claim  to  originality  in  the  inven- 
tion is  to  inquire  whether  enough  has  been 
communicated  to  enable  him  to  apply  it  with- 
out the  exercise  of  invention.  Watson  t.  Bel- 
field,  26  Fed.  536. 

Where  the  patentee  learned  of  the  inven- 
tion abroad  he  is  not  an  original  inventor. 
American  Sulphite  Pulp  Co.  v.  Rowland  Falls 
Pulp  Co.,  70  Fed.  986  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  80  Fed.  395,  25  C.  C.  A.  500]. 

16.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4886. 

17.  Act   (1883),  §  34,  46  &  47  Viet.  c.  57. 

18.  Sherwood    v.    Drewson,    29    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    161;  Hillard  v.  Brooks,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.   C.)    526;    Herman  v.   Fullman,  23   App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  259;  Howard  v.  Hey,  18  App.  Cas. 

(D.  C.)  142;  Latham  v.  Armat,  17  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  345;  Christie  v.  Seybold,  55 
Fed.  69,  5  C.  C.  A.  33;  Chandler  v.  Ladd, 

5  Fed.   Cas.  No.   2,593,  McArthur  Pat.   Cas. 
493;  Farley  v.  National  Steam-Gauge  Co.,  8 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,648,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  618; 
Heath  v.  Hildreth,   11   Fed.   Cas.  No.   6,309, 
Cranch  Pat.  Cas.  96,  132,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
12;  Lyman  Ventilating,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Chamber- 
lain, 15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,631,  2  Ban.  &  A.  433, 
10   Off.    Gaz.   588;    Lyman   Ventilating,   etc., 
Co.  v.  Lalor,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,632,  1  Ban. 

6  A.  403,   12  Blatchf.  303,  6  Off.  Gaz.  642; 
Northwestern  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  v.  Phila- 
delphia Fire  Extinguisher  Co.,   18  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,337,  1  Ban.  &  A.  77,  6  Off.  Gaz.  34,  10 
Phila.    (Pa.)    227;   Roberts  v.   Reed  Torpedo 
Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,910,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
629,  3  Brewst.   (Pa.)   558;  Smith  v.  Prior,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,095,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  469, 
2  Sawy.  461,  4  Off.  Gaz.  633. 

The  rules  of  law  as  to  what  constitutes  a 
prior  use  and  what  constitutes  a  reduction  to 
practice  are  the  same.  Gilman  v.  Hinson,  26 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  409. 

The  device  constructed  must  be  fashioned 
out  of  a  material  capable  of  actual  use  for 
the  intended  purpose  in  order  to  constitute  a 
reduction  to  practice.  Gilman  v.  Hinson,  26 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  409. 

Models  and  drawings. — A  model  is  not  a 
reduction  to  practice  ( Howell  v.  Hess,  30  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  194;  Hunter  v.  Stikeman,  13 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  214;  Mason  v.  Hepburn, 
13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  86;  Porter  v.  Louden,  7 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  64;  Stainthorp  v.  Humis- 
ton,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,281,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
107),  unless  the  invention  belongs  to  that 
class  of  simple  inventions  which  require  no 
other  proof  of  their  practicability  than  the 
construction  of  a  model  (O'Connell  v.  Schmidt, 
27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  77).  Models  and  draw- 
ings constituted  a  reduction  to  practice  under 

[IV,  A,  4] 


the  act  of  1836.  Heath  v.  Hildreth,  11  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,309,  Cranch  Pat.  Dec.  96,  132,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  12;  Perry  v.  Cornell,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,002,  Cranch  Pat.  Cas.  132, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  6.8. 

Sketches  and  drawings  are  not  a  reduction 
to  practice.  Christie  v.  Seybold,  55  Fed.  69, 
5  C.  C.  A.  33.  See  also  supra,  III,  C,  4,  f. 

Unsuccessful  machine  is  not  a  reduction  to 
practice.  Pelton  v.  Waters,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,913,  1  Ban.  &  A.  599,  7  Off.  Gaz.  425.  See 
also  supra,  III,  C,  4,  e. 

Proof  of  various  experiments  in  search  of 
a  particular  process,  and  an  approximation 
to  that  process,  does  not  sufficiently  show  a 
reduction  to  practice.  Bourn  v.  Hill,  27 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  291. 

Voting  machine  must  work  with  accuracy. 
McKenzie  v.  Cummings,  24  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
137. 

Process. —  A  process  is  reduced  to  practice 
only  when  used.  Croskey  v.  Atterbury,  9 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  207. 

Later  manufacture  on  larger  scale. —  If  an 
experimental  machine  completely  embodies 
the  invention,  and  is  capable  of  testing  its 
efficiency  to  the  full  extent  of  its  power,  the 
mere  fact  that  later  manufactures  to  fill  or- 
ders may  be  on  a  larger  scale  cannot  impair 
its  effect  as  constituting  reduction  to  prac- 
tice. Robinson  v.  Thresher,  28  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  22. 

Long  delay  in  making  use  of  an  invention 
claimed  to  have  been  reduced  to  practice,  or 
in  applying  for  a  patent,  is  a  potent  circum- 
stance tending  to  show  that  the  alleged  re- 
duction to  practice  was  nothing  more  than 
an  unsatisfactory  or  abandoned  experiment; 
and  this  is  especially  the  case  where,  in  the 
meantime,  the  inventor  has  baen  engaged  in 
the  prosecution  of  similar  inventions.  Gil- 
man v.  Hinson,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  409. 

Where  the  inventor  is  already  engaged  in 
disposing  of  a  large  stock  of  devices  manu- 
factured under  former  patents  relating  to  the 
same  subject-matter,  of  which  the  new  inven- 
tion is  an  improvement,  a  failure  immediately 
to  manufacture  and  put  on  the  market  the 
newly  invented  device  does  not  afford  any 
reasonable  foundation  for  denying  the  date 
claimed  for  its  conception.  Laas  v.  Scott,  26 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  354. 

The  dismantling  of  an  experimental  ma- 
chine by  a  large  and  prosperous  company  has 
more  weight  as  showing  the  lack  of  success 
of  the  trial  than  it  would  have  if  done  by  a 
poor  inventor  whose  necessities  compel  him 
to  utilize  the  parts  for  other  purposes.  Rob- 
inson v.  Threshsr,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  22. 

Delay  in  filing  application  as  effective 
weight  of  proof  of  actual  reduction  to  prac- 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     875 


is  not  necessary.19  A  perfect  invention  does  not  necessarily  mean  a  perfectly 
constructed  machine,  but  one  so  constructed  as  to  embody  all  the  essential 
elements  of  the  invention  in  a  form  that  would  make  them  practical  and 
operative,  so  as  to  accomplish  the  result  in  a  practical  way.20  Demonstration  of 
the  success  by  actual  use  is  usually  necessary,21  although  some  devices  are  so 
simple  that  the  mere  construction  without  use  is  sufficient.22  The  same  act,  or 
set  of  acts,  may  or  may  not  constitute  a  reduction  to  practice,  modified,  as  they 
may  be,  by  the  special  circumstances  of  the  particular  case.23  The  reduction  to 
practice  must  bs  by  the  applicant  himself,  or  by  his  authorized  agent,  and  not  by 
some  other  third  party.24  It  is  not  enough  to  entitle  an  applicant  to  a  patent 
that  someone  else  has  shown  the  practicability  of  the  invention  by  reducing  it  to 
practice.  The  work  of  such  third  party  will  not  be  taken  as  sufficient  to  relieve 
the  applicant  of  the  consequences  of  his  own  want  of  diligence.25 

b.  Constructive  Reduction  to  Practice.  The  filing  of  an  allowable  application 
for  a  patent  is  a  constructive  reduction  to  practice  of  the  invention  at  the  date 
when  it  was  filed.26  So  also  is  a  description  of  the  invention  in  a  foreign  patent 


tice  see  Seeberger  v.  Russel,  26  App.  Gas. 
(D.  C.)  344. 

Reduction  to  practice  of  device  for  protect- 
ing low-tension  telephone  circuits  see  Rolfe  v. 
Hoffman,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  336. 

Evidence  of  reduction  to  practice  see  See- 
berger v.  Russel,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  344. 

19.  Lowrie  v.  Taylor,  27  App.  Cas.  (B.C.) 
522;  Coffee  v.  Guerrant,  3  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
497 ;  Brunswick-Balke-Collender  Co.  v.  Backus 
Automatic    Pin    Setter    Co.,    153    Fed.    288; 
Rogers  Typograph  Co.  v.  Mergenthaler  Lino- 
type Co.,  64  Fed.  799,  12  C.  C.  A.  422;  Mer- 
genthaler Linotype  Co.  v.  Press  Pub.  Co.,  57 
Fed.  502;  Jenner  v.  Dickinson,  117  Off.  Gaz. 
600;    Hope   v.   Voight,    115    Off.    Gaz.    1585; 
Gallagher  v.  Hien,   115  Off.  Gaz.   1330;   Na- 
tional Cash  Register  Co.  v.  Lamson  Consol. 
Store  Service  Co.,  67  Off.  Gaz.  680. 

Later  improvements. —  Success  is  not  nega- 
tived by  later  improvements.  Wyman  v. 
Donnelly,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  81;  Hien  17. 
Buhoup,  11  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  293. 

20.  Burson  v.  Vogel,  29  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
388;  Coffee  v.  Guerrant,  3  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
497 ;    American    Hide,    etc.,    Splitting,    etc., 
Mach.  Co.  v.  American  Tool,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  302,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  284,  Holmes 
503. 

21.  Wickers  v.  McKee,  29  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
4;     Macdonald     v.     Edison,     21     App.     Cas. 

(D.  C.)  527;  Latham  v.  Armat,  17  App.  Gas. 

(D.  C.)  345;  Kelly  v.  Fynn,  16  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  573;  Appert  v.  Schmertz,  13 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  117;  Ocumpaugh  v.  Nor- 
ton, 115  Off.  Gaz.  1850;  Paul  v.  Hess,  115 
Off.  Gaz.  251. 

A  shop  test  is  sufficient. —  Demonstration 
need  not  be  in  commercial  use.  Wyman  v. 
Donnelly,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  81;  Wurts 
v.  Harrington,  10  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  149. 

22.  Rolfe  v.  Hoffman,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
336;  Couch  v.  Barnett,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
446;  Loomis  v.  Hauser,  19  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
401;  Lindemeyr  v.  Hoffman,  18  App.  Cas. 

(D.  C.)    1;  Mason  v.  Hepburn,  13  App.  Cas. 

(D.  C.)   86. 

23.  Andrews     v,     Nilson,     27     App.     Cas. 
(D.    C.)    451;    Rolfe    v.    Hoffman,    26    App. 
Cas.    (D.  C.)    336. 


24.  Robinson  v.  McCormick,  29  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  98;  Hunter  v.  Stikeman,  13  App.  Cas. 
(D.   C.)    214;    Burgess   v.   Wetmore,    16    Off. 
Gaz.   765. 

25.  Hunter    v.    Stikeman,    13    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    214. 

26.  Davis  v.  Garrett,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
9;  Cobb  v.  Goebel,  23  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   75; 
Dashiell    v.    Tasker,    21    App.    Cas.    (D.    C.) 
64;    Lindemeyr    v.    Hoffman,    18    App.    Cas. 
(D.    C.)    1;    Hulett   v.    Long,    15   App.    Cas. 
(D.   C.)    284;   McCormick  v.   deal,   12  App. 
Cas.     (D.    C.)     335;    Dodge    v.    Fowler,    11 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  592;  Croskey  v.  Atterbury, 
9  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    207;  Porter  v.  Louden, 
7  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  64;  Dane  v.  Chicago  Mfg. 
Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,557,  3  Biss.  380,  6  Fish. 
Pat.   Cas.   130,  2   Off.   Gaz.   677;    Johnsen  v. 
Fassman,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,365,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  471,  1  Woods  138,  2  Off.  Gaz.  94;  John- 
son v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,409,  2  Cliff. 
108,    2    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.   291;    New   England 
Screw  Co.  v.  Sloan,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,158, 
Me  Arthur  Pat.  Cas.  210;  Wheeler  v.  Clipper, 
Mower,  etc.,  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,493,  10 
Blatchf.  181,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1,  2  Off.  Gaz. 
442. 

Where  application  fails  to  disclose  inven- 
tion sufficiently  it  is  not  a  reduction  to  prac- 
tice. Stevens  v.  Seher,  11  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
245. 

Caveat  is  not  a  reduction  to  practice. 
American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  National  Tel.  Mfg. 
Co.,  109  Fed.  976. 

Renewal  of  application  takes  date  of  origi- 
nal. Lotterhand  v.  Hanson,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  372;  Cain  v.  Park,  14  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  42. 

Forfeited  application  cannot  defeat  a  pat- 
ent regularly  granted.  Christensen  v.  Noyes, 
15  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  94. 

Divisional  application  takes  date  of  origi- 
nal. Hillard  v.  Brooks,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
526. 

Reissue  application  dates  from  original 
and  applicant  is  entitled  to  date  of  original 
as  date  of  constructive  reduction  to  practice. 
Austin  17.  Johnson,  18  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
83. 

In  England  the  patent  bears  date  of  appli- 

[IV,  A,  5,  b] 


876     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


or  a  printed  publication.27  Where  an  application  for  a  patent  is  first  made  abroad 
in  a  country  having  the  requisite  treaty  relations  with  this  country,  the  date  of 
the  application,  if  within  t\velve  months  before  the  application  here,  controls.28 
In  case  of  designs  the  foreign  application  must  be  within  four  months. 

6.  DILIGENCE.29  The  person  who  is  first  to  conceive  the  invention  but  later 
than  his  rival  in  reducing  it  to  practice  is  not  regarded  as  the  first  inventor  unless 
he  exercised  due  diligence  in  efforts  to  perfect  the  invention,30  at  and  continuously 
after  the  time  that  his  rival  entered  the  field  against  him.81  Knowledge  of  the 
entry  of  the  rival  in  the  field  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  impose  the  duty  of  dili- 
gence.32 The  question  of  due  diligence  is  not  a  matter  of  comparative  diligence 
as  between  the  two  parties,33  but  it  is  merely  required  that  the  last  to  reduce  to 
practice  shall  show  that  he  was  exercising  reasonable  diligence  under  all  of  the 
surrounding  circumstances.34 


cation  and  is  effective  from  that  date.  Ex  p. 
Bailey,  L.  R.  8  Ch.  60,  42  L.  J.  Ch.  264,  27 
L.  T!  Rep.  N.  S.  430,  21  Wkly.  Rep.  31; 
Holste  v.  Robertson,  4  Ch.  D.  9,  46  L.  J.  Ch. 
1,  35  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  457,  25  Wkly.  Rep.  35; 
Saxby  v.  Hennett,  L.  R.  8  Exch.  210,  42  L.  J. 
Exch.  137,  28  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  639,  22  Wkly. 
Rep.  16;  Ex  p.  Henry,  L.  R.  8  Ch.  167,  42 
L.  J.  Ch.  363,  21  Wkly.  Rep.  233.  The  pat- 
ent, however,  bars  the  grant  of  a  subsequent 
patent  even  upon  an  earlier  application.  Lee 
v.  Walker,  L.  R.  7  C.  P.  121,  41  L.  J.  C.  P. 
91,  26  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  70.  Where  two  appli- 
cations were  filed  on  the  same  date  both 
patents  were  granted.  In  re  Bering,  13  Ch.  D. 
3f)3,  42  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  634,  28  Wkly.  Rep. 
710. 

27.  Parker  v.  Appert,  75  Off.  Gaz.  1201. 
Foreign  patent  is  effective  only  from  the 

date  of  issue.  Rousseau  v.  Brown,  21  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  73. 

Acts  abroad  not  considered  unless  in  form 
of  patent  or  publication.  Electrical  Accumu- 
lator Co.  r.  Julien  Electric  Co.,  38  Fed.  117. 

28.  This  applies  only  to  applications  filed 
after  March  3,  1903.    32  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  1225, 
c.  1019. 

Foreign  application  was  ineffective  under 
the  old  law.  Rousseau  v.  Brown,  21  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  73. 

29.  Abandonment  of  invention  in  general 
see  supra,  III,  G. 

30.  Moore  v.  Hewitt,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
577;   Rose  v.  Clifford,  31  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
195;    Gordon    v.    Wentworth,    31    App.    Cas. 
(D.    C.)     150;    Feinberg   v.    Cowan,    29   App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  80;  Parkes  v.  Lewis,  28  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  1 ;  Fowler  v.  Boyce,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
48;  Fowler  17.  McBerty,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
41;  Laas  v.  Scott,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  354; 
Dashiell  v.  Tnsker,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  64; 
Oliver  v.  Felbel,  20  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)   255; 
Marvel  v.  Decker,  13  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   562; 
Platt    v.    Shipley,    11    App.    Gas.     (D.    C.) 
576;   Yates  v.  Huson,  8  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
93;   Standard  Cartridge  Co.  v.  Peters  Cart- 
ridge Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23  C.  C.  A.  367 ;  Ecau- 
bert  v.  Appleton,  67  Fed.  917,  15  C.  C.  A.  73; 
Christie  v.  Seybold,  55  Fed.  69,  5  C.  C.  A.  33 ; 
Hubel  r.  Dick,  28  Fed.   132;   Cox  v.  Griggs, 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,302,   1  Biss.  362,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  174;  Ellithorp  v.  Robertson,  8  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    4,409,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    585; 

[IV,  A,  5,  b] 


Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge  Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,660,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  450,  1  Off.  Gaz. 
466,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  368. 

Nature  of  diligence  required. —  The  dili- 
gence required  of  an  inventor  is  diligence 
rather  in  the  reduction  of  his  invention  to 
practice  than  in  application  to  the  patent 
office,  or  in  manufacturing  his  device  for 
public  use.  Woods  v.  Poor,  29  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  397;  Rolfe  v.  Hoffman,  26  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  336. 

Constructive  reductions  to  practice. —  Dili- 
gence in  applying  for  patent  is  effective.  New- 
ton f.  Woodward,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  34; 
Odall  v.  Stout,  22  Fed.  159;  Jones  v.  Cooke, 
117  Off.  Gaz.  1493. 

Lack  of  diligence  in  prosecuting  applica- 
tion after  it  is  filed  is  of  no  consequence. 
Miehle  v.  Read,  18  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  128. 

Filing  caveat  will  not  excuse  diligence. 
Johnson  v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,411,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  351. 

Work  on  other  inventions  is  not  diligence. 
Bliss  v.  McElroy,  29  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  120; 
Lotterhand  v.  Hanson,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
372;  Croskey  v.  Atterbury,  9  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  207. 

Diligence  must  be  in  testing  and  perfecting 
the  invention  and  not  merely  in  exploiting  it 
commercially.  Howell  v.  Hess,  30  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  194;  Laas  v.  Scott,  26  App.  ('as. 
(D.  C.)  354;  Seeberger  v.  Dodge,  114  Off. 
Gaz.  2382. 

31.  Effective  diligence  must  commence  be- 
fore rival  entered  the  field  and  continue  there- 
after.   It  need  not  commence  with  conception. 
McArthur  v.  Mygatt,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  514 : 
De  Wallace  v.  Scott,  15  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  157 ; 
Griffin   v.    Swenson,    15    App.    Cas.    (D.    C.) 
135;  Platt  v.  Shipley,  11  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
576;  Yates  v.  Huson,  8  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  93; 
Christie  v.   Seybold,  55   Fed.   69,   5   C.   C.   A. 
33;   Reed  v.  Cutter,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,645, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  81,   1   Story  590. 

32.  Platt  r.  Shipley,  11  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
576. 

33.  Not  a  race  of  diligence. —  Paul  v.  John- 
son, 23   App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    187;   Christie  v. 
Seybold,  55  Fed.  69,  5  C.  C.  A.  33;  Electric 
R.  Signal  Co.  r.  Hall  R.  Signal  Co..  6  Fed. 
603  [affirmed  in  114  U.  S.  87,  5  S.  Ct.  1060, 
29  L.  ed.  90]. 

34.  Diligence  cannot  be  determined  by  any 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     877 


7.  MODELS,  DRAWINGS,  AND  DESCRIPTION.     Models,  unpublished   drawings,  and 
verbal  or   unpublished  description  of  an  invention  do  not  constitute  proof  of 
priority.85     They  must  be  followed  by  diligence  in  reduction  to  practice.36 

8.  ASSISTANCE  BY  OTHERS.     The  inventor  who  furnishes  the  ideas  to  produce 
the  result  is  entitled  to  avail  himself  of  the  mechanical  skill  or  scientific  knowl- 
edge of  others  in  carrying  those  ideas  into  effect  and  he  does  not  thereby  forfeit 
the  right  to  a  patent.87 


general  rule  but  depends  upon  the  special 
circumstances  of  the  particular  case.  Mead 
v.  Davis,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  590;  Woods  v. 
Poor,  29  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  397;  O'Con- 
nell  v.  Schmidt,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  77; 
De  Wallace  r.  Scott,  15  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
157;  McCormick  v.  deal,  12  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
335. 

Only  such  diligence  as  is  reasonable  is  re- 
quired. Mead  v.  Davis,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
590;  Garrels  v.  Freeman,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
207. 

Experiments. —  Reasonable  time  is  allowed 
for  experiments.  De  Wallace  v.  Scott,  15 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  157;  Dietz  v.  Wade,  7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,903. 

Making  drawings  only  is  not  diligence. 
Watson  v.  Thomas,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  65. 

Poverty  and  illness  will  not  excuse  in- 
definite delays.  Griffin  v.  Swenson,  15  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  135. 

Mistake  in  supposing  invention  covered  by 
a  prior  patent  is  no  excuse  for  delay.  Platt 
V.  Shipley,  11  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  576. 

Resumption  after  abandonment. — An  in- 
ventor of  a  complicated  device,  who  attempts 
to  construct  a  completed  machine  with  his 
own  hands  during  a  period  of  over  a  year, 
and  finally  abandons  the  effort  from  lack  of 
time  and  money,  and  immediately  makes  a 
model  and  drawings,  is  exercising  due  dili- 
gence. Davis  v.  Garrett,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  9. 

For  cases  in  which  the  particular  facts  were 
held  to  show  diligence  see  Howard  v.  Bones, 
31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  619;  Davis  v.  Horton, 
31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  601;  Mead  v.  Davis, 
31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  590;  O'Connell  v. 
Schmidt,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  77;  Roe  v. 
Hanson,  19  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  559;  Christen- 
sen  v.  Ellis,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  498;  New- 
ton ?;.  Woodward,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  34; 
Shellaberger  i\  Sommer,  8  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
3 ;  McCormick  Harvesting  Mach.  Co.  f. 
Minneapolis  Harvester  Works,  42  Fed.  152; 
Hubel  v.  Dick,  28  Fed.  132;  Appleton  v. 
Chambers,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  497a ;  Mix  v. 
Perkins,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,677;  New  Eng- 
land Screw  Co.  v.  Sloan,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,158,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  210;  Phelps  v. 
Brown,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,072,  4  Blatchf. 
362,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  479. 

For  cases  in  which  the  particular  facts  were 
held  to  show  lack  of  diligence  see  Kinsman  v. 
Kentner,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  293;  Gordon 
f.  Wentworth,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  150;  Bliss 
v.  McElroy,  29  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  120;  Parkes 
r.  Lewis,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  1;  Turnbull  v. 
Curtis,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  567;  Anderson 
v.  Wells,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  115;  Liber- 
man  v.  Williams,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  223; 


Paul  v.  Johnson,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  187; 
Harris  v.  Stern,  22  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
164;  Wyman  v.  Donnelly,  21  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  81;  Hallwood  v.  Lalor,  21  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  61;  Petrie  v.  De  Schweinitz,  19  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  386;  Stapleton  v.  Kinney,  18 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  394;  Miehle  v.  Read,  18 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  128;  Austin  v.  Johnson, 
18  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  83;  Locke  v.  Boch,  17 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  75;  Darnell  v.  Grant,  16 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  589;  Jackson  v.  Getz,  16 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  343;  Jackson  v.  Knapp, 
16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  338;  Marvel  v.  Decker, 
13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  562;  Dodge  v.  Fowler, 
11  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  592;  Arnold  v.  Tyler,  10 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  175;  Porter  v.  Louden,  7 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  64;  Wright  v.  Postel,  44 
Fed.  352;  Pennsylvania  Diamond  Drill  Co. 
t\  Simpson,  29  Fed.  288;  Johnson  v.  Root, 
13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,409,  2  Cliff.  108,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  291 ;  Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge 
Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,660,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  456,  1  Off.  Gaz.  466,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  368,- 
Savary  v.  Lauth,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,389, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  691;  Gallagher  r.  Hien, 
115  Off.  Gaz.  1330;  Paul  v.  Hess,  115  Off. 
Gaz.  251;  Seeberger  r.  Dodge,  114  Off.  Gaz. 
2382. 

35.  Howell  v.  Hess,  30  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
194;     Guilbert    v.    Killinger,     13    App.    Cas. 

(D.  C.)  107;  McCormick  v.  deal,  12  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  3oo;  Porter  v.  Louden,  7  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  64;  Standard  Cartridge  Co.  v. 
Peters  Cartridge  Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23  C.  C.  A. 
367;  Christie  v.  Seybold,  55  Fed.  69,  5  C.  C.  A. 
33;  Uhlman  v.  Bartholomse,  etc.,  Brewing 
Co.,  41  Fed.  132;  Reeves  v.  Keystone  Bridge 
Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,660,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
456,  1  Off.  Gaz.  466,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  368; 
Stillwell,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cincinnati  Gas- 
light, etc.,  Co.,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,453,  1 
Ban.  &  A.  610,  7  Off.  Gaz.  829;  Hammond 
v.  Basch,  115  Off.  Gaz.  804. 

Small  size  of  machine  will  not  prevent  re- 
duction to  practice.  Gallagher  i\  Hien,  115 
Off.  Gaz.  1330. 

36.  See  supra,  IV,  A,  6. 

37.  McKellof  v.  Fetzer,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
586;     Huebel     v.     Bernard,     15     App.     Cas. 
(D.  C.)   510;  Agawam  Woolen  Co.  v.  Jordan, 
7  Wall.   (U.  S.)    583,  19  L.  ed.  177;  O'Reilly 
v.  Morse,  15  How.   (U.  S.)  62,  14  L.  ed.  601; 
Smith  v.  Stewart,  55   Fed.  481    {.affirmed  in 
58  Fed.  580,  7  C.  C.  A.  380];   Eclipse  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Adkina,  44  Fed.  280;  Yoder  v.  Mills,  25 
Fod.    821;    National    Feather   Duster    Co.    v. 
Hibbard,  9  Fed.  558,  11  Biss.  76;  Blandy  r. 
Griffith,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,529,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  609;  Pennock  r.  Dialogue,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   10,941,   1   Robb  Pat.  Cas.  466,  4  Wash. 
538    [affirmed  in   2   Pet.    1,   7   L.   ed.    327J ; 

[IV,  A,  8] 


878     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


9.  INVENTION  MADE  ABROAD.     Acts  performed  abroad,  whether  by  a  citizen  of 
tliis  country  or  a  foreigner,  are  not  pertinent  to  the  question  of  his  right  to  a  patent, 
since  under  the  statute  knowledge  or  use  of  the  invention  abroad  is  no  bar  to  the 
grant  of   a  patent  to  an  original  inventor  who  firsts  makes  or  discloses  the 
invention  bere.38 

10.  EVIDENCE  AS  TO  ORIGINALITY  AND  PRIORITY  39  —  a.  Presumptions  and  Burden 
of  Proof.     The  presumption  is  that  the  person  who  obtained  the  patent  was  the 
first  and  original  inventor,40  and  the  burden  is  upon  the  person  seeking  to  show  the 
contrary  to  prove  it  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.41 

b.  Admissibility  and  Sufficiency.     The  admissibility  of  evidence  in  actions  to 
establish  priority  between  inventors  is  governed  by  the  rules  applicable  in  civil 


Sparkman  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Gas.  No.  13,208, 
1  Blatchf.  205,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  110,  5  N.  Y. 
Leg.  Obs.  122;  Watson  v.  Bladen,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,277,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  510,  4 
Wash.  580;  Allen  v.  Rawson,  1  C.  B.  551, 
50  E.  C.  L.  551;  Milligan  v.  Marsh,  2  Jur. 
N.  S.  1083 ;  Steadman  v.  Marsh,  2  Jur.  N.  S. 
391.  And  see  infra,  IV,  C,  2. 

38.  U.  S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4923   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3396].     And  see  supra, 
III,  B,  5. 

Unless  in  the  form  of  a  patent  or  publica- 
tion acts  abroad  are  not  pertinent.  Electric 
Accumulator  Co.  v.  Brush.  52  Fed.  130,  2 
C.  C.  A.  682. 

In  Canada  a  foreign  inventor  who  was  first 
to  conceive  but  who  did  not  make  public 
or  use  is  not  entitled  to  the  patent.  Reg.  v. 
La  Force,  4  Can.  Exch.  14. 

As  against  an  infringer,  date  of  invention 
abroad  may  be  shown.  Welsbach  Light  Co. 
v.  American  Incandescent  Lamp  Co.,  98  Fed. 
613,  39  C.  C.  A.  185;  Hanifen  v.  Price,  96 
Fed.  435  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  102 
Fed.  509,  42  C.  C.  A.  484] ;  Hanifen  v.  E.  H. 
Godshalk  Co.,  78  Fed.  811. 

39.  Conclusiveness  and  effect  of  decision  of 
patent  office  see  infra,  VI,  C,  15,  d. 

40.  Lewis    v.    Cronemeyer,    29    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)  174 ;  Bader  v.  Vajen,  14  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
241;  Dodge  v.  Fowler,  11  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
592;     Croskey    v.    Atterbury,    9    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    207;  Soley  v.  Hebbard,  5  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  99;  Elizabeth  v.  American  Nicholson 
Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000; 
Seymour  v.  Osborne,   11   Wall.    (U.  S.)    516, 
20  L.  ed.  33;  Agawam  Woolen  Co.  v.  Jordan, 
7  Wall.    (U.  S.)    583,  19  L.  ed.   177;  Gayler 
v.  Wilder,   10  How.    (U.   S.)    477,   13  L.  ed. 
504;    Merrimac   Mattress   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Feld- 
man,  133  Fed.  64;  Standard  Cartridge  Co.  v. 
Peters  Cartridge  Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23  C.  C.  A. 
367    [affirming    69    Fed.    408] ;    Front   Rank 
Furnace  Co.  v.  Wrought  Iron  Range  Co.,  63 
Fed.    995;    Green    v.    French,    11    Fed.    591; 
Albright  v.  Celluloid  Harness  Trimming  Co., 
1   Fed.   Cas.  No.   147,  2   Ban.   &  A.   629,    12 
Off.  Gaz.  227;  Carter  v.  Carter,  5  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,475,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  388;  Cook  v. 
Ernest,  6  Fed.   Cas.  No.  3,155,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  396,  1  Woods  195,  2  Off.  Gaz.  89;  Crouch 
v.  Speer,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,438,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
145,  6  Off.  Gaz.  187;  Foote  v.  Silsby,  9  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,916,  1  Blatchf.  445,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
268  [affirmed  in  14  How.  218,  14  L.  ed.  394]  ; 
Goodyear  v.  Day,   10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,569,  2 

[IV,  A,  9] 


Wall.  Jr.  283;  Hoffheins  v.  Brandt,  12  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,575,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  218;  Howes 
v.  Nute,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,790,  4  Cliff.  173, 

4  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  263;   Matthews  v.  Skates, 
16    Fed.    Cas.    No.   9,291,    1    Fish.   Pat.    Cas. 
602;  Putnam  v.  Yerrington,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,486,   2   Ban.   &  A.   237,   9   Off.   Gaz.   689; 
Reed  v.   Cutter,   20   Fed.   Cas.   No.   11,645,  2 
Robb  Pat.   Cas.   81,    1    Story  590;    Reeves   v. 
Keystone  Bridge  Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,660, 

5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  456,  1  Off.  Gaz.  466,  9  Phila. 
(Pa.)    368;   Sickels  v.  Borden,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    12,832,    3    Blatchf.    535;    Washburn    v. 
Gould,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,214,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  206,  3  Story  122;  Winans  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,864,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  1. 

To  what  time  presumption  extends. —  The 
presumption  of  originality  arising  from  the 
grant  of  a  patent  only  extends  back  to  the 
time  when  the  application  was  filed  in  the 
patent  office.  Johnson  v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,409,  2  Cliff.  108,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  291; 
Johnson  v.  Root,  13-  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,410,  2 
Cliff.  637;  Jones  v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,495,  3  Cliff.  563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3 
Off.  Gaz.  630  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
91  U.  S.  171,  23  L.  ed.  275];  Union  Sugar 
Refinery  v.  Matthiesson,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,399,  3  Cliff.  639,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  600; 
Webster  Loom  Co.  v.  Higgins,  29  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,342,  4  Ban.  &  A.  88,  15  Blatchf.  446, 
16  Off.  Gaz.  675;  White  v.  Allen,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,535,  2  Cliff.  224,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  440;  Wing  v.  Richardson,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,869,  2  Cliff.  449,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
535. 

41.  Gibbons  v.  Peller,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
530;  Larkin  v.  Richardson,  28  App.  Ca?. 
(D.  C.)  471;  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Beat  'Em  All  Barbed-Wire  Co.,  143  U.  S. 
275,  12  S.  Ct.  443,  36  L.  ed.  154;  Hall  Signal 
Co.  v.  Union  Switch,  etc.,  Co.,  115  Fed.  638; 
Cohansey  Glass  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wharton,  28 
Fed.  189;  Donoughe  v.  Hubbard,  27  Fed.  712; 
Duffy  t).  Reynolds,  24  Fed.  855;  Rogers  v. 
Beecher,  3  Fed.  639;  Campbell  v.  James,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,361,  4  Ban.  &  A.  456,  17 
Blatchf.  42,  8  Reporter  455,  18  Off.  Gaz.  979; 
Cox  v.  Griggs,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,302,  1  Biss. 
362,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  174;  Fisk  v.  Church, 
9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,826,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  540, 
1  Off.  Gaz.  634;  Hawes  v.  Antisdel,  11  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,234,  2  Ban.  &  A.  10,  8  Off.  Gaz. 
685 ;  Konold  v.  Klein,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,925, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  226,  5  Reporter  427. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     8T9 


actions  generally.42  The  weight  and  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  in  actions  to 
establish  priority  between  inventors  is  governed  by  the  rules  applicable  in  civil 
cases  generally.43 

B.  Joint  Inventors  —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  Two  or  more  parties  may  by  mutual 
contributions  or  suggestions  so  aid  in  developing  the  idea  of  each  as  to  produce 
an  invention  which  must  be  regarded  as  the  result  of  the  joint  mental  efforts  of 
both,  and  not  as  the  separate  invention  of  either,  and  in  such  case  they  must 
apply  for  and  receive  the  patent  jointly.44 

2.  JOINDER  IN  GRANT.  A  patent  issued  to  two  parties  as  joint  inventors  is 
invalid  where  it  appears  that  one  of  them  is  the  sole  inventor,45  or  where  different 


42.  See,  generally,  EVIDENCE. 

Verbal  declarations  of  a  person  that  he  has 
made  an  invention,  coupled  with  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  nature  and  objects  of  the  inven- 
tion, are  a  part  of  the  res  gestce,  and  ad- 
missible to  prove  priority  of  invention  (Phila- 
delphia, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stimpson,  14  Pet. 
(U.  S.)  448,  10  L.  ed.  535;  Gibbs  v.  John- 
son, 10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,384;  Stephens  v. 
Salisbury,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,369,  McArthur 
Pet.  Cas.  379)  and  such  verbal  descriptions, 
without  drawing  or  model,  are  admissible  for 
the  purpose  of  proving  priority  of  invention, 
when  the  invention  is  of  great  simplicity  and 
the  time  is  not  so  long  as  to  make  the  recol- 
lection improbable  (Stephens  v.  Salisbury, 
supra ) .  But  it  seems  that  conversations  and 
declarations  by  one  of  the  parties  describ- 
ing a  device  by  which  he  has  already  con- 
structed a  model  is  inadmissible,  if  such 
model  is  not  produced  or  its  non-production 
accounted  for  (Richardson  v.  Hicks,,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,783,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  335)  ; 
and  it  has  been  held  error  to  allow  a  witness 
testifying  to  such  conversations  and  declara- 
tions to  testify  that  a  model  shown  to  him 
and  not  claimed  to  be  the  one  that  the  in- 
ventor had  then  constructed  corresponds  to 
the  description  given,  and  that  he  could  have 
made  it  from  such  description  (Richardson  v. 
Hicks,  supra] . 

A  certificate  of  a  commissioner  of  patents 
of  the  correctness  of  a  copy  or  translation 
from  a  French  volume  in  the  patent  office 
is  inadmissible  to  prove  the  existence  of  an 
invention  prior  to  plaintiff's  patent,  as  the 
book  itself,  or  a  duly  proved  translation,  ^s 
the  only  way  its  contents  can  be  shown.  Gay- 
lord  t?.*  Case,  5  Ohio  Dec.  (Reprint)  413,  4 
Am.  L.  Rec.  494. 

43.  See,  generally,  EVIDENCE. 

Evidence  held  sufficient  see  National  Co.  v. 
Belcher,  71  Fed.  876,  18  C.  C.  A.  375;  Uhl- 
man  v.  Arnholdt,  etc.,  Brewing  Co.,  53  Fed. 
485;  Bliss  v.  Merrill,  33  Fed.  39;  Atkinson 
v.  Boardman,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  608,  Cranch 
Pat.  Dec.  139,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  80;  Bab- 
cock  v.  Degener,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  698,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  607;  Collins  v.  White,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,019;  Jillson  v.  Winsor,  13 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,321,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  136; 
Sherwood  v.  Sherman,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,780. 

Evidence  held  insufficient  see  Gibbons  v. 
Pellar,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  530;  Shuman 
v.  Beall,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  324;  Henry  v. 
Doble,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  33;  Gillette  v. 
Sendelbach,  146  Fed.  758,  77  C.  C.  A.  55; 
Ashe  v.  Mutual  Lasting  Co.,  42  Fed.  840; 


Lamson  Cash  R.  Co.  v.  Osgood  Cash  Car  Co., 
29  Fed.  210;  Hutchinson  v.  Everett,  26  Fed. 
531;  Beach  v.  Tucker,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,153; 
Carter  v.  Carter,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,475,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  388;  Clarke  v.  Cramer,  5 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,848,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  473; 
Cornell  v.  Hyatt,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,237,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  423;  Warner  v.  Goodyear, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,183,  Cranch  Pat.  Dec. 
125,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  60. 

On  testimony  which  is  vague  and  wanting 
in  precision  in  respect  to  the  essential  fea- 
tures of  the  device  for  which  priority  is 
claimed,  priority  of  invention  will  not  be  ad- 
judged. Cornell  v.  Hyatt,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,237,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  423. 

Acknowledgment  or  admission  of  priority. 
—  On  a  question  of  priority  between  two  in- 
ventors, the  fact  that  one  of  them  partici- 
pated in  the  application  of  the  other  would 
seem  to  constitute  a  conclusive  acknowledg- 
ment of  priority.  National  Co.  v.  Belcher,  71 
Fed.  876,  18  C.  C.  A.  375.  But  the  fact  that 
one  who  claims  to  be  the  first  and  original 
inventor  of  a  device  has  taken  into  partner- 
ship with  himself  the  assignees  of  another, 
who  also  claim  to  be  the  original  inventor, 
instead  of  litigating  with  them  the  question 
of  priority,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  ad- 
mission by  the  former  patentee  of  the  validity 
of  the  patent  claimed  by  the  latter,  if  the 
arrangement  was  induced  either  directly  or 
indirectly  by  fraud  or  misrepresentation. 
Sloat  I?.  Spring,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,948a. 

44.  Consolidated  Bunging  Apparatus  Co.  v. 
Woerle,  29  Fed.   449;    Worden  v.  Fisher,   11 
Fed.  505;   Gottfried  v.  Phillip  Best  Brewing 
Co.,   10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,633,  5  Ban.  &  A.  4, 
17  Off.  Gaz.  675. 

Where  each  has  invented  a  distinct  im- 
provement on  the  same  machine,  the  object 
sought  to  be  attained  being  a  unit,  a  joint 
patent  may  be  issued.  Wilson  v.  Singer,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,835. 

Mutual  suggestions  and  improvements  are 
sufficient  to  constitute  a  joint  invention. 
Worden  v.  Fisher,  11  Fed.  505. 

Filing  a  sale  caveat  is  no  estoppel  to  secure 
joint  patent.  Hoe  v.  Kahler,  25  Fed.  271,  23 
Blatchf.  354,  12  Fed.  Ill,  20  Blatchf.  430. 

When  a  claim  covers  a  series  of  steps  or  a 
number  of  elements  in  a  combination,  the  in- 
vention may  well  be  joint,  although  some  of 
the  steps  or  some  of  the  elements  may  have 
come  as  the  thought  of  one.  Quincey  Min. 
Co.  v.  Krause,  151  Fed.  1012,  81  C.  C.  A. 
290. 

45.  Bannerman  v.  Sanford,  99  Fed.  294,  39 

[IV,  B,  2] 


880     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


improvements  on  the  same  machine  were  invented  by  each  separately  without  the 
participation  or  knowledge  of  the  other,46  and  a  patent  issued  to  a  party  as  sole 
inventor  is  invalid  where  it  appears  that  he  made  the  invention  jointly  with 
another.47  One  of  two  joint  inventors  cannot  make  application  and  secure  the 
patent  upon  assignment  from  the  other.  Both  must  join.48  In  an  action  for  the 
infringement  of  a  patent,  the  burden  of  showing  as  a  defense  that  the  patentee 
was  a  joint  inventor  with  some  other  person,  of  the  thing  invented,  is  upon  the 
patentee.49  The  issuance  of  a  patent  to  two  persons  as  joint  inventors  constitutes 
prima  facie  proof  that  the  invention  was  joint.50  And  to  invalidate  a  patent 
granted  to  two  jointly  the  evidence  must  be  clear  and  convincing.51 

C.  Employer  and  Employee 52  —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  The  statutes  of  the  United 
States  require  that  the  patent  issue  upon  the  application  of  and  in  the  name  of 
the  real  inventor,  although  he  was  employed  and  paid  to  make  it  for  the  benefit 
of  the  one  employing  him.53  In  such  case  the  employer  may  be  entitled  to  the 
ownership  of  the  patent  and  may  compel  its  transfer  by  assignment,  but  this 
depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  agreement  between  them.54  A  company  that 
employs  a  skilled  workman  to  make  improvements  on  its  machinery  is  not 
entitled  to  a  conveyance  of  the  patents  secured  by  the  workman  on  improvements 
so  made  in  the  absence  of  agreement  to  that  effect.55  An  employee,  performing 
all  the  duties  assigned  to  him  in  his  department  of  service,  may  exercise  his 
inventive  faculties  in  any  direction  he  chooses,  with  the  assurance  that  whatever 


C.  C.  A.  534;  Stewart  v.  Tenk,  32  Fed.  665; 
Welsbach  Light  Co.  v.  Cosmopolitan  Incan- 
descent Gaslight  Co.,  100  Fed.  648;  Royer  v. 
Coupe,  29  Fed.  358 ;  Hotchkiss  v.  Greenwood, 
12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,718,  4  McLean  456,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  730  [affirmed  in  11  How.  248,  13 
L.  ed.  683] ;  Ransom  v.  New  York,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,573,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  252;  Act 
(1885),  §  5,  48  &  49  Viet.  c.  63. 

46.  De    Laval    Separator    Co.    v.    Vermont 
Farm  Mach.   Co.,   126   Fed.   536   [affirmed  in 
135  Fed.  772,  68  C..C.  A.  474]. 

47.  Arnold  v.  Bishop,  1  Fed.  Cas.  Nos.  552, 
553,  McArthur  Pat.   Cas.   27,  36;    Thomas  v. 
Weeks,   23   Fed.   Cas.   No.    13,914,   Fish.   Pat. 
Rep.  5,  2  Paine  92. 

Evidence  held  insufficient  to  show  joint  in- 
vention see  Ashcroft  v.  Cutter,  2  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  578,  6  Blatchf.  511. 

48.  2  Op.  Atty.-Gen.  571. 

49.  Ashcroft  v.  Cutter,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  578, 
6  Blatchf.  511. 

50.  Page  Woven  Wire  Fence  Co.  v.  Land, 
49  Fed.  936. 

51.  Page  Woven  Wire  Fence  Co.  v.  Land, 
49   Fed.   936;    Schlicht,  etc.,   Co.  v.   Chicago, 
Sewing-Mach.  Co.,  36  Fed.  585;  Consolidated 
Bunging   Apparatus   Co.   v.   Woerle,   29    Fed. 
449;    Gottfried   v.   Phillip  Best  Brewing  Co., 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,633,  5  Ban.  &  A.  4,  17  Off. 
Gaz.  675. 

Testimony  of  one  of  joint  patentees  insuffi- 
cient to  invalidate  patent.  Priestly  v.  Mon- 
tague, 47  Fed.  650. 

52.  See    MASTER    AND    SERVANT,    26    Cyc. 
1021. 

53.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4895   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3385];  Tyler  v.  Kelch, 
19  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   180;  Hunt  v.  McCaslin, 
10  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    527,  79  Off.  Gaz.  861; 
Green  v.  Willard  Improved  Barrel  Co.,  1  Mo. 
App.  202;  Damon  v.  Eastwick,  14  Fed.  40. 

In  England,  where  a  servant  or  employee 

[IV,  B,  2] 


makes  an  invention  the  patent  is  granted  to 
him.  Ex  p.  Scott,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  274,  19-  Wklv. 
Rep.  425;  Bloxam  v.  Elsee,  6  B.  &  C.  169, 
13  E.  C.  L.  88,  1  C.  &  P.  558,  12  E.  C.  L. 
320,  9  D.  &  R.  215,  5  L.  J.  K.  B.  0.  S.  104, 
R.  &  M.  187,  30  Rev.  Rep.  275;  Matter  of 
Russell,  2  De  G.  &  J.  130,  6  Wkly.  Rep.  95, 
59  Eng.  Ch.  104,  45  Eng.  Reprint  937. 

54.  Hunt  f.  McCaslin,  10  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
527. 

Circumstances  showing  title  in  employer 
see  Baldwin  v.  Von  Micheroux,  83  Hun  (X.Y.) 
43,  31  N.  Y.  Suppl.  696  [affirming  5  Misc.  386, 
25  N.  Y.  Suppl.  857] ;  Annin  v.  Wren,  44  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  352;  Bonsack  Mach.  Co.  v,  Hulse,  57 
Fed.  519  [affirmed  in  65  Fed.  864,  13  C.  C.  A. 
180]. 

Insufficient  proof  of  agreement. —  Dalzell  v. 
Dueber  Watch-Case  Mfg.  Co.,  149  U.  S.  315, 
13  S.  Ct.  886,  37  L.  ed.  749  [reversing  38  Fed. 
597]. 

Securing  patent  at  expense  of  company  by 
employee  will  not  give  company  title.  Deane 
v.  Hodge,  35  Minn.  146,  27  N.  W.  917,  59 
Am.  Rep.  321. 

55.  Sendelbach    v.    Gillette,    22    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    168;  Burr  v.  De  la  Vergne,  102  N.  Y. 
415,  7  N.  E.  366;  Burden  v.  Burden  Iron  Co., 
39  Misc.    (N.  Y.)    559,  80  N.  Y.  Suppl.  390; 
Gill  v.  U.  S.,  160  U.  S.  426,  16  S.  Ct.  322.  40 
L.  ed.  480;  Dalzell  v.  Dueber  Watch-Case  Mfg. 
Co.,   149  U.  S.  315,   13  S.  Ct.  886,  37  L.  ed. 
749;    Hapgood    r.   Hewitt,    119   U.   S.    226,   7 
S.  Ct,  193,  30  L.  ed.  309-;  Barber  v.  National 
Carbon  Co.,  129  Fed.  370,  64  C.  C.  A.  40,  5 
L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  1154;  Pressed  Steel  Car  Co.  v. 
Hansen,    128  Fed.   444    [affirmed  in   137  Fed. 
403,  71  C.  C.  A.  207,  2  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  1172]  ; 
Taylor  v.  Wood,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13.808,   1 
Ban.  &  A.  270,  12  Blatchf.  110,  8  Off.  Gaz.  90; 
Whiting  v.  Graves,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,577. 
3  Ban.  &  A.  222,  13  Off.  Gaz.  455.     And  see 
infra,  IV,  D. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     881 


invention  lie  may  thus  conceive  and  perfect  is  his  individual  property.56     The 
company,  however,  has  an  implied  license  to  make,  use,  and  sell  the  invention.57 

2.  PERFECTION  OF  EMPLOYER'S  IDEAS.     Where  the  employer  has  a  preconceived 
plan  of  an  invention,  and  while  engaged  in  experiments  to  perfect  it  the  employee 
makes  suggestions  ancillary  to  the  plan  and  preconceived  ideas  of  the  employer, 
the  invention  as  a  whole  including  the  improvements  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
invention  of  the  employer/3     It  is  otherwise,  however,  if  the  suggestions  of  the 
employee  amount  to  a  new  method  or  arrangement  which  is  in  itself  a  complete 
invention.     To  enable  the  employer  to  claim  the  invention  he  must  have,  not 
merely  the  idea  of  the  end  or  result  to  be  accomplished,  but  a  definite  idea  of  the 
means  which  the  employee  amplifies  or  improves  in  details.59 

3.  PRESUMPTIONS  AS  TO  INVENTORSHIP.     Where  a  party  employs  another  to  assist 
in  giving  practical  effect  to  his  ideas,  the  presumption  is  that  the  employer  is  the 
inventor  of  the  thing  produced  by  their  joint  effort,  and  the  burden  is  upon  the 
employee  to  show  clearly  that  he  made  the  invention.60     On  the  other  hand  where 
a   party  is  employed  to  exercise  his  inventive  skill  because   of    his  supposed 
ability  as  an  inventor,  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  employee.61 

D.  Government  Employees.  Government  employees  in  general  may  secure 
patents  upon  inventions  made  by  them  during  their  employment  and  are  entitled 
to  own  the  patents  upon  the  same  conditions  as  other  employees.62  The  govern- 
ment may  have  an  implied  license  to  use  the  invention,  but  has  no  title  to  the 
patent  except  by  express  agreement.63  Employees  of  the  patent  office  cannot 
receive  or  own  a  patent  except  by  inheritance  or  bequest;61  but  after  their 
employment  ceases  they  may  secure  a  patent  upon  an  invention  made  during  their 
employment.65 


Agreement  not  against  public  policy. —  An 
agreement  by  an  employee  to  assign  an  inter- 
est in  all  inventions  made  by  him  to  the 
employer,  in  consideration  of  the  employment, 
is  not  against  public  policy.  Wright  v.  Vo- 
calion  Organ  Co.,  148  Fed.  209,  78  C.  C.  A. 
183. 

Construction  of  contract  for  interest  in  fu- 
ture inventions  see  Wright  v.  Vocalion  Organ 
Co.,  148  Fed.  209,  78  C.  C.  A.  183. 

Improvements  made  after  expiration  of 
agreement  do  not  belong  to  employer.  Apple- 
ton  v.  Bacon,  2  Black  (U.  S.)  699,  17  L.  ed. 
338. 

56.  Solomons  v.  U.  S.,   137  U.  S.  342,   11 
S.  Ct.  88,  34  L.  ed.  667. 

57.  Gill  v.  U.  S.,  160  U.  S.  426,  16  S.  Ct. 
322,  40  L.  ed.  480;  Keyes  v.  Eureka  Consol. 
Min.   Co.,    158  U.  S.    150,    15   S.  Ct.   772,  39 
L.  ed.  929;  Lane,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Locke,  150  U.  S. 
193,  14  S.  Ct.  78,  37  L.  ed.  1049;   Solomons 
v.  U.  S.,  137  U.  S.  342,  11  S.  Ct.  88,  34  L.  ed. 
067;    Hapgood    v.   Hewitt,    119   U.    S.  226,   7 
S.  Ct.  193,  30  L.  ed.  369;  Blauvelt  v.  Interior 
Conduit,  etc.,  Co.,  80  Fed.  906,  26  C.  C.  A. 
243;    Whiting  v.    Graves,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,577,   3   Ban.  &  A.   222,   13  Off.  Gaz.  455. 
And  see  Bonathan  v.  Bowmanville  Furniture 
Mfg.  Co.,  31  U.  C.  Q.  B.  413. 

58.  McKellof  v.  Fetzer,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
586;    Larkin    v.    Richardson,    28    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    471;   Kreag  v.  Green,  28  App.  Cas. 
(D.   C.)    437;    Orcutt   v.   McDonald,  27   App. 
Cas.    (D.  C.)    228;   Gallagher  v.  Hastings,  21 
App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)   88;  Gedge  v.  Cromwell,  19 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)    192;  Hunt  v.  McCaslin,  10 
App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    527;   Milton  v.  Kingsley, 
7  App.  Cas.    (D.   C.)    531;    Agawam  Woolen 

[56] 


Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  583,  19  L.  ed. 
177;  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Wetherbee,  7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,810,  2  Cliff.  555,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  87;  Goodyear  v.  Day,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,566;  King  v.  Gedney,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,795,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  443;  Wellman  v. 
Blood,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,385,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  432;  Huebel  v.  Bernard,  90  Off.  Gaz. 
751. 

Lack  of  mechanical  skill  and  employment  of 
another  to  construct  a  machine  does  not  for- 
feit the  right  to  an  invention.  United  Shirt, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Beattie,  149  Fed.  736,  79  C.  C.  A. 
442  [affirming  138  Fed.  136]. 

59.  Sendelbach    v.    Gillette,    22    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    168;  Streat  v.  Simpson,  53  Fed.  358. 

60.  Whitney    v.    Howard,    21    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)   218;  Flather  v.  Weber,  21  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)    179;  Gallagher  v.  Hastings,  21  App. 
Cas.   (D.  C.)   88;  Slaughter  v.  Halle,  21  App. 
Cas.     (D.    C.)     19;    Gedge    v.    Cromwell,    19 
App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    192;   Miller  v.   Kelly,   18 
App.   Cas.    (D.  C.)    163;   Milton  v.  Kingsley, 
7  App.   Cas.    (D.  C.)    531;   Goodyear  r.  Day, 
10   Fed.    Cas.    No.    5,566;    Thibodeau   r.   Hil- 
dreth,  117  Off.  Gaz.  601;  Corsy  v.  McDermott, 
117   Off.  Gaz.  279. 

61.  See  supra,  IV,  C,  1. 

62.  Gill  v.  U.  S.,  160  U.  S.  426,  16  S.  Ct. 
322,  40  L.  ed.  480;   Solomons  v.  U.  S.,   137 
U.  S.  342,  11  S.  Ct.  88,  34  L.  ed.  667. 

63.  Gill  tr.  U.  S.,  160  U.  S.  426;  McAleer 
v.  U.  S.,  150  U.  S.  424,  14  S.  Ct,  160,  37  L.  ed. 
1130;  Solomons  v.  U.  S.,  137  U.  S.  342. 

64.  U.    S.   Eev.   St.    (1878)    §   480    [U.    S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)    p.  271]. 

65.  Page   v.    Holmes    Burglar    Alarm    Tel. 
Co.,    1    Fed.   304,    17    Blatchf.   485;    Foote    v. 

[IV.  D] 


882     [30  Cyc.]  PATENTS 

E.  Assignees.     Patents  may  be  issued  and  reissued  to  assignees  upon  appli- 
cations made  by  the  inventors.66     It  is  not  necessary,  however,  for  the  patent  to 
issue  in  the  name  of  the  assignee  in  order  that  lie  shall  acquire  title,  since  it  vests 
in  him  by  operation  of  law  when  the  instrument  of  transfer  is  made.67     Assignees 
as  well  as  inventors  may  transfer  title  to  patents  owned  by  them  since  the  right  of 
transfer  is  unlimited.68 

F.  Personal  Representatives.     Upon  the  death  of  the  inventor  before  issue 
of  patent,  the  right  of  applying  for  and  obtaining  the  patent  devolves  upon  the 
executor  or  administrator.69     The  personal  representatives  take  the  patent  with 
other  property  in  trust  for  the  heirs.70     A  foreign  executor  or  administrator  may 
apply  for  and  receive  the  patent,  but  his  authority  must  be  proved  by  a  certificate 
of  a  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  of  the  United  States.71 

G.  Heirs.     If  after  applying  for  a  patent  the  inventor  dies  and  the  patent 
issues  in  his  name  after  his  death,  it  goes  by  operation  of  law  to  the  heirs.72 

H.  Guardian  of  Insane  Person.  Where  an  inventor  becomes  insane  before 
securing  a  patent,  his  legally  appointed  guardian,  conservator,  or  representative 
may  apply  for  and  obtain  the  patent  in  trust  for  him.73 

V.  APPLICATION  AND  PROCEEDINGS  THEREON.™ 

A.  In  General.     The  application  for  a  patent  must  be  made  to  the  commis- 
sioner of  patents,73  and  the  statutory  requirements  must  be  complied  with  in  mak- 
ing application  and  in  the  proceedings  thereon  or  the  patent  is  void.76     The  pro- 
ceedings upon  applications  are  governed  by  rules  adopted  by  the  commissioner  of 
patents  with  the  approval  of  the  secretary  of  the  interior  under  section  483  of  the 
.Revised  Statutes. 

B.  Requisites  of  Application  — 1.  IN  GENERAL.     An  application  for  patent 
in  the  United  States  comprises  a  petition,  specification,  claims,  oath,  fee  of  fifteen 
dollars,  drawings  if  the  nature  of  the  inventions  admits  of  illustration,   and  a 
model  if  required  by  the  patent  office.77     Models  are  seldom  required  and  are 

Frost,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,910,  3  Ban.  &  A.  607,  Wall.   (U.  S.)   788,  19  L.  ed.  566;  Northwest- 

14  Off.  Gaz.  860.  era  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.  v.  Philadelphia  Fire 

66.  U.  S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4895   [U.  S.  Extinguisher  Co.,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,337,  1 
Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3385] ;  Hendrie  v.  Sayles,  Ban.  &  A.   177,   10  Phila.    (Pa.)    227,  6  Off. 
98  U.  S.  546,  25  L.  ed.  176.  Gaz.  34. 

Copartnership  may  issue  to  copartnership  71.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.     (1878)     §    4896,    as 

as  assignee.     Wright  v.  Randel,  8  Fed.  591,  19  amended  March  3,   1903,  32  U.  S.  St.  at  L. 

Blatchf.  495;  Harrison  v.  Morton,  76  Off.  Gaz.  1227. 

1275.  72.  De  la  Vergne  Refrigerating  Mach.  Co. 

67.  Gayler    v.    Wilder,    10    How.    (U.    S.)  v.  Featherstone,  147  U.  S.  209,  13  S.  Ct.  283, 
477,    13    L.    ed.    504;    Consolidated    Electric  37  L.  ed.  138. 

Light  Co.  v.  McKeesport  Light  Co.,  34  Fed.          73.  The  above   is   embodied   in   the   act  of 

335;   Consolidated  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Edi-  Feb.  26,  1899,  c.  227,  30  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  915 

son    Electric    Light    Co.,    25    Fed.    719,    23  [U.    S.    Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    3386],    but 

Blatchf.  412.  through  obvious  clerical  error  does  not  appear 

Record  in  the  patent  office  is  delivery  of  in  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)   §  4896,  as  rewritten 

possession.      Waterman    v.     MacKenzie,     138  in  the  act  of  March  3,  1903,  c.  1019,  §  3,  32 

U.  S.  252,  11  S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923.  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  1226  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  Suppl. 

68.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4398   [U.   S.  (1905)    p.  665]. 

Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3002];  Selden  v.  Stock-  Patent  to  guardian  is  valid.— Whitcomb  v. 

well  Self-Lighting  Gas-Burner  Co.,  9  Fed.  390,  Spring  Valley  Coal  Co.,  47  Fed.  652. 

19  Blatchf.  544.  74.  Application    for    extension    of    patent 

69.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4896;   De  la  see  infra,  VII,  B. 

Vergne   Refrigerating  Mach.   Co.   v.   Feather-  Application  for  reissue  see  infra,  VIII,  E. 

stone,  147  U.  S.  209,  13  S.  Ct.  283,  37  L.  ed.  75.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4888   [U.  S. 

138;  Eagleton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  West  Bradley,  etc.,  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3383]. 

Mfg.  Co.,  Ill  U.  S.  490,  4  S.  Ct.  593,  28  L.  ed.  76.  Kennedy  v.  Hazelton,  128  U.  S.  667,  9 

493;    Stimpson    r.   Rogers,   23   Fed.   Cas.  No.  S.  Ct.  202,  32  L.  ed.  576;   Roemer  v.  Simon, 

13,457,  4  Blatchf.  333.  95  U.  S.  214,  24  L.  ed.  384.     And  see  supra, 

In  England  the  executor  or  administrator  I,  A,  4. 

must    apply    for    patent    within    six   months.  77.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §§   4888,  4889, 

Act   (1883),  §  34,  46  &  47  Viet.  c.  57.  4891,  4892,  4934  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  (1901)  pp. 

70.  Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9  3383,  3384,  3400]. 

[IV,  E] 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     883 


never  necessary  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  entry  of  the  application  as  complete.78 
All  parts  save  the  model  must  be  filed  in  the  patent  office  before  the  application 
will  be  given  a  filing  date.79  The  application  must  be  signed  by  the  inventor  if 
alive  and  two  witnesses.80  Copies  of  the  specification,  claims,  and  drawings  are 
attached  to  the  patent  and  form  a  part  thereof.81 

2.  SPECIFICATION  OR  DESCRIPTION — a.  In  General.  The  word  "specification," 
when  used  separately  from  the  word  "  claim,"  as  used  in  the  statute,  means  the 
written  description  of  the  invention  and  of  the  manner  and  process  of  making, 
constructing,  compounding,  and  using  it  and  the  claims  made.82  While  it  is  said 
that  courts  are  reluctant  to  declare  patents  void  for  insufficient  description,83  the 
applicant  must  nevertheless  describe  not  merely  the  principle  of  his  invention,  but 
the  best  mode  in  which  he  contemplates  applying  the  principle  and  must  describe 
the  means  to  be  employed  in  such  full,  clear,  and  exact  terms  as  will  enable  those 
skilled  in  the  art  without  other  aid  to  make  and  use  the  invention.84  If  this  is 
not  done  the  patent  is  void.85  It  has  been  decided  that  nothing  should  be  left  to 


78.  Pract.  Rule  56. 

A  model  is  no  part  of  patent.  Barry  v. 
Gugenheim,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,061,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  452,  1  Off.  Gaz.  382. 

Necessity  for  specimens. — The  patent  office 
determines  whether  specimens  are  necessary. 
Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Cochrane,  2 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  719,  4  Ban.  &  A.  215,  16 
Blatchf.  155  \reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
111  U.  S.  293,  4  S.  Ct.  45,  28  L.  ed. 
433]. 

79.  Pract.  Rule  31. 

80.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4888   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3383]. 

81.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §    4889    [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3383]. 

82.  Wilson  v.  Coon,  6  Fed.  611,  18  Blatchf. 
332. 

83.  Adams  v.  Joliet  Mfg.  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  56,  3  Ban.  &  A.  1,  12  Off.  Gaz.  93 ;  Swift 
v.  Whisen,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,700,  2  Bond 
115,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343. 

84.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4888   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3383];  Parks  v.  Booth, 
102  U.  S.  96,  26  L.  ed.  54;  Gill  v.  Wells,  22 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  1,  22  L.  ed.  699;  Grier  v.  Castle, 
17  Fed.  523;  Allen  v.  Hunter,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
225,  6  McLean  303;  Burr  v.  Cowperthwait,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,188,  4  Blatchf.  163;  Forbes  V. 
Barstow  Stove  Co.,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,923,  2 
Cliff.  379 ;  Judson  v.  Moore,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,569,  1  Bond  285,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  544;  Mabie 
v.  Haskell,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,653,  2  Cliff.  507; 
Page   v.   Ferry,    18    Fed.    Cas.   No.    10,662,    1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  298;   Sullivan  v.  Redfield,  23 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,597,  Paine  441,  1  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  477;   Swift  v.  Whisen,  23  Fed  Cas.'No. 
13,700,  2  Bond   115,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343; 
Teese  v.  Phelps,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,819,  Mc- 
Allister 48;    Tucker  v.   Tucker  Mfg.   Co.,  24 
Fed.    Cas.   No.    14,227,    2    Ban.    &   A.   401,   4 
Cliff.  397,  10  Off.  Gaz.  464;  Vogler  v.  Semple, 

28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,987,  2  Ban.  &  A.  556,  7 
Biss.  382,  11  Off.  Gaz.  923;  Wayne  v.  Holmes, 

29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,303,  1  Bond  27,  2  Fish. 
Pat.   Cas.   20;    Whitney  v.   Emmett,   29   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,585,  BaW.  303,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
567;    Whitney   v.   Mowry,   29   Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,592,   2   Bond   45,   3   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.    157; 
Wintermute  v.  Redington,   30  Fed.   Cas.   No. 
17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  239;  Wyeth  v.  Stone, 


30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,107,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
23,  1  Story  273. 

Reasons  for  rule.—  Exactitude  in  the  de- 
scription of  an  invention  is  required  in  order 
that  the  government  may  know  what  they 
have  granted,  and  what  will  become  public 
property  when  the  patent  expires;  that 
licensees  may  know  how  to  use  and  practice 
the  invention  during  the  term  of  the  patent; 
and  that  subsequent  inventors  may  know 
what  portion  of  the  field  of  an  invention  is 
unoccupied.  Judson  v.  Moore,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,569,  1  Bond  285,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  544; 
Tucker  v.  Tucker  Mfg.  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,227,  2  Ban.  &  A.  401,  4  Cliff.  397,  10  Off. 
Gaz.  464 ;  Wayne  v.  Holmes,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,303,  1  Bond  27,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  20. 

Construction  of  phrase  "mounted  on"  see 
In  re  Duncan,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  457. 

In  England  provisional  specification  need 
describe  the  invention  only  roughly  and  not  in 
detail.  Murray  v.  Clayton,  L.  R.  7  Ch.  570, 
20  Wkly.  Rep.  649;  Stoner  v.  Todd,  4  Ch.  D. 
58,  46  L.  J.  Ch.  32,  35  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  661, 
25  Wkly.  Rep.  38;  Daw  v.  Eley,  L.  R.  3  Eq. 
496,  36  L.  J.  Ch.  482,  15  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  559; 
In  re  Newall,  4  C.  B.  N.  S.  269,  4  Jur.  N.  S. 
562,  27  L.  J.  C.  P.  357,  93  E.  C.  L.  269; 
Pneumatic  Tyre  Co.  v.  East  London  Rubber 
Co.,  75  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  488.  When  provi- 
sional specification  is  allowed  by  the  law  officer 
of  the  crown  it  cannot  be  impeached  as  in- 
sufficient. Penn  v.  Bibby,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  127,  36 
L.  J.  Ch.  455,  15  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  39-9,  15 
Wkly.  Rep.  208. 

85.  Ames  v.  Howard,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  326, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  689,  1  Sumn.  482;  Emerson 
v.  Hogg,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,440,  2  Blatchf.  1, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  77;  Evans  v.  Hettick,  8  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,562,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  166,  3  Wash. 
408  [affirmed  in  7  Wheat.  453,  5  L.  ed.  496] ; 
Lippincott  v.  Kelly,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,381; 
Lowell  v.  Lewis,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,568,  1 
Mason  182,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  131;  Parker  v. 
Stiles,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,749,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
319,  5  McLean  44. 

For  descriptions  held  insufficient  see  Miller 
v.  Mawhinney  Last  Co.,  105  Fed.  523,  44 
C.  C.  A.  581;  Davis  v.  Parkman,  71  Fed.  961, 
18  C.  C.  A.  398;  Schneider  v.  Thill,  21  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,470a,  5  Ban.  &  A.  565 ;  Sullivan  v. 

[V,  B,  2,  a] 


884:     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


experiment.86  A  specification  is  sufficient,  if  a  mechanic  skilled  in  the  art  can 
from  the  descriptions  and  drawings  make  and  use  the  invention  ;87  and  sufficiency 
is  to  be  determined  by  knowledge  possessed  at  the  time  of  the  grant.88  By 
''skilled  in  the  art"  is  meant  those  of  ordinary  skill  and  not  the  very  expert."1 
Whether  the  description  is  so  full,  clear,  and  exact  as  to  enable  any  one  skilled  in 
the  art  to  make  and  use  it  is  a  question  for  the  jury  to  determine90  upon  the 
evidence  of  persons  skilled  in  the  art  to  which  the  patent  appertains.91 

b.  Matters  of  Common  Knowledge.     It  is  not  necessary  to  describe  matters  of 
common   knowledge  which  those  skilled  in  the  art  would   understand  without 
description.92 

c.  Uses  of  Invention.     It  is  not  necessary  to  describe  all  uses  to  which  the 
invention  may  be  put,  but  it  is  necessary  to  describe  some  intended  use.93     The 
inventor  is  entitled  to  all  uses  of  his  invention  whether  he  foresaw  them  or  not.94 


Redfield,  23  Fed.  Gas.  No.  13,597,  1  Paine  441, 

1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  477;   Webster  Loom  Co.  v. 
Higgins,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,342,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
88,   15   Blatchf.  446,   16  Off.  Gaz.   675. 

For  cases  in  which  allegations  of  insuffi- 
ciency of  description  were  overruled  see  Sea- 
bury  v.  Am  Ende,  152  U.  S.  561,  14  S.  Ct.  683, 
38  L.  ed.  553;  Lawther  v.  Hamilton,  124  U.  S. 
1,  8  S.  Ct.  342,  31  L.  ed.  325;  Consolidated 
Safety- Valve  Co.  v.  Crosby  Steam  Gauge,  etc., 
Co.,  113  U.  S.  157,  5  S.  Ct.  513,  28  L.  ed.  939; 
Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  620,  20 
L.  ed.  860 ;  Wood  v.  Underbill,  5  How.  ( U.  S. ) 
1,  12  L.  ed.  23;  De  Lamar  v.  De  Lamar  Min. 
Co.,  110  Fed.  538  [affirmed  in  117  Fed.  240, 
54  C.  C.  A.  272];  Hensel-Colladay  Co.  v. 
Rosenau,  105  Fed.  968;  Edison  Electric  Light 
Co.  v.  U.  S.  Electric  Lighting  Co.,  52  Fed. 
300,  3  C.  C.  A.  83;  Burrows  v.  Wetherill,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,208,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  315; 
Goodyear  v.  Wait,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,587,  5 
Blatchf.  408,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  242;  Wayne  v. 
Holmes,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,303,  1  Bond  27, 

2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  20;   Wilbur   v.  Beecher,  29 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    17,634,   2   Blatchf.    182,   Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  401. 

Stating  proportions. —  A  claim  for  a  com- 
pound is  not  void  because  the  exact  propor- 
tions are  not  stated,  where  proportions  may 
be  varied.  Klein  ?;.  Russell,  19  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
433,  22  L.  ed.  116. 

Stating  dimensions. —  When  the  novelty  of 
an  invention  consists  in  the  dimensions  or  the 
material  of  the  new  thing  devised,  the 
patentee  must  specify  the  particular  dimen- 
sions or  the  particular  material  his  invention 
contemplates.  Bullock  Electric  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
General  Electric  Co.,  149  Fed.  409,  79  C.  C.  A. 
229  [reversing  146  Fed.  549]. 

86.  Head    v.    Stevens,    19    Wend.    (N.   Y.) 
411;  Tyler  v.  Boston,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  327,  19 
L.  ed.  93;  Wood  v.  Underbill,  5  How.  (U.  S.) 
1,    12  L.   ed.    23;    Matheson   v.  Campbell,   78 
Fed.  910,  24  C.  C.  A.  384. 

Patent  for  chemical  process  must  disclose 
materials  and  proportions  with  such  clearness 
that  no  experiment  i^  necessary.  B6n6  v. 
Jeantet,  129  U.  S.  683,  9  S.  Ct.  428,  32  L.  ed. 
803;  Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78  Fed.  910,  24 
C.  C.  A.  384. 

87.  W7ebster    Loom    Co.    v.    Higgins,    105 
U..  S.  580,  26  L.  ed.  1177;  Am  Ende  i\  Sea- 
bury,  36  Fed.  593;  Dorsey  Harvester  Revolv- 
ing" Rake  Co.  v.  Marsh,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,014, 

[V,  B,  2,  a] 


6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  387,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  395; 
St.  Louis  Stamping  Co.  v.  Quinby,  21  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,240,  4  Ban.  &  A.  192,  16  Off.  Gaz. 
135;  Stanley  v.  Whipple,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,286,  2  McLean  35,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  1; 
Stephens  v.  Salisbury,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,369, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  379. 

88.  Matheson  v.  Campbell,  69  Fed.  597  [.af- 
firmed in  78  Fed.  910,  24  C.  C.  A.  384]. 

89.  Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78  Fed.  910,  24 
C.  C.  A.  384;    Tannage  Patent  Co.   r.   Zahn, 
66  Fed.  986  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  70 
Fed.  1003,  17  C.  C.  A.  552]. 

90.  Wood  v.  Underbill,  5  Wall.   (U.  S.)    1, 
12    L.    ed.    23;    Hogg    v.    Emerson,    11    How. 
(U.  S.)  587,  13  L.  ed.  824;  Brooks  v.  Jenkins, 
4  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,953,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  41,  3 
McLean.  432;  Carver  v.  Braintree  Mfg.  Co.,  5 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,485,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  141,  2 
Story  432;  Davis  ?;.  Palmer,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No-. 
3,645,   2   Brock.   298,   1   Robb  Pat.   Cas.   518; 
Page   v.    Ferry,    18    Fed.    Cas.    No.    10,662,    1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  298. 

91.  Wood  r.  Underbill,  5  How.   (U.  S.)    1, 
12  L.  ed.  23. 

92.  American    Delinter    Co.    r.    American 
Mach.,  etc.,  Co.,  128  Fed.  709,  63  C.  C.  A.  307  ; 
Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,944,  3 
McLean  250,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.   118;   Carr  r. 
Rice,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,440,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
198;  Davis  r.  Palmer,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,645, 
2  Brock.  29-8,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  518;  Kneass  r. 
Schuylkill   Bank,    14   Fed.    Cas.   No.   7,875,    1 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  303,  4  Wash.  9;   Tompkins  v. 
Gage,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,088,  f>  Blatchf.  268, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  577;   Union  Paper-Bag  Co. 
v.  Nixon,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,386,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  402,  4  Off.  Gaz.  31. 

For  description  of  old  features  reference 
may  be  made  to  a  prior  patent.  Parkes  r. 
Stevens,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  36,  22  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
635,  18  Wkly.  Rep.  233. 

93.  Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  102  U.  S.  707,  26 
L.  ed.  279 ;  Blanchard  r.  Eldridge,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   1,509;   Pike  v.  Potter,   19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,162,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  55;  Macnamara  v. 
Hulse,  C.  &  M.  471,  41  E.  C.  L.  258;  Derosne 
r.  Fairie,  2   C.  M.  &  R.  476,   1   Gale    109,  5 
Tyrw.  393. 

94.  Stow    r.    Chicago,    104    U.    S.    547,    26 
L  ed.  816;  Roberts  v.  Ryer,  91  U.  S.  150,  23 
L.    ed.    267;    Tucker    v.    Spalding,    13    Wall. 
(U.  S.)    453,  20  L.  ed.  515;  Goshen  Sweeper 
Co.  v.  Bissell  Carpet-Sweeper  Co.,  72  Fed.  67, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     885 


d.  Philosophical  Principles.     If  the  inventor  does  not  know  the  philosophical 
principles  upon  which  his  invention  works  or  what  takes  place  during  its  opera- 
tion, the  failure  to  describe  them  does  not  render  the  patent  void  so  long  as  the 
description  is  sufficient  to  enable  those  skilled  iti  the  art  to  practice  the  invention 
and  get  the  results  desired.95 

e.  Improvements.     The  general  rule  governing  description  Vof  the  thing   for 
which  a  patent  is  asked96  applies  in  the  case  of  improvements.97     The  description 
should  show  clearly  in  what  the  improvement  consists.98     It  should  be  confined 
to  the  specific  improvement  and  such  parts  of  the  old  mechanism  as  necessarily 
cooperate  with  it.99     It  should  distinguish  between  the  old  and  the  new.1     If  this 
is  not  done  the  only  mode  of  obviating  the  difficulty  is  either  by  an  amended 
specification  or  a  View  patent.2     It  is  usually  unnecessary  to  describe  the  old 
machine,3  a  general  reference  thereto  being  sufficient,4  unless  a  description  of  the 
whole  machine  as  it  operates  with  the  improvement  is  essential  to   make  the 
description  understood  by  a  person  of  the  trade  to  which  it  belongs.5      A  descrip- 
tion in  a  patent  for  an  improvement  is  sufficient  if  a  practical  mechanic  acquainted 
with  the  construction  of  the  old  machine  in  which  the  improvement  is  made,  can, 
with  the  aid  of  the  patent  and  diagram,  adopt  the  improvement.6 

f.  Concealment  and  Deception.     Where  the  inventor  in  his  patent  intention- 
ally conceals  facts  about  his  invention  or  attempts  to  deceive  or  mislead  the  pub- 
lic in  regard  to  it,  the  patent  is  void.7     An  untrue  statement  of  a  material  fact 
invalidates  a  patent,  although  a  skilled  workman  might  avoid  it.8     Mere  defects 
in  the  description  not  intended  to  deceive  will  not  invalidate  a  patent;9  arid  if 
fraud  is  charged  it  must  be  proved.10 


19  C.  C.  A.  13;  Stearns  v.  Russell,  84  Off.  Gaz. 
1434. 

95.  National  Meter  Co.  v.  Thomson  Meter 
Co.,  106  Fed,   531;   Emerson  Co.  v.  Nimocks, 
99  Fed.  737,  40  C.  C.  A.  87;   Knickerbocker 
Co.  v.  Rogers,  61  Fed.  297;  Dixon- Woods  Co. 
p.  Pfeifer,  55  Fed.  390,  5  C.  C.  A.  148 ;  Haffcke 
«?.   Clark,   46  Fed.   770;   Andrews  v.   Cross,   8 
Fed.  269,  19  Blatchf.  294;  St.  Louis  Stamping 
Co.  v.  Quinby,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,240,  4  Ban. 
&  A.   192,   16  Off.  Gaz.   135.     And  see  supra, 
II,  B,  7. 

96.  See  supra,  V,  A,  2. 

97.  Brooks    v.    Bicknell,    4    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,944,  3  McLean  250,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  118. 

98.  Barrett  v.  Hall,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,047, 
1  Mason  447,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  207 ;  Dixon  V. 
Moyer,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,931,  4  Wash.  68,  1 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  324. 

99.  Pract.   Rule   31;    Cross   v.    Huntly,    13 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  385;  Barrett  v.  Hall,  2  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,047,  1  Mason  447,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  207; 
Sargent  v.  Carter,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,362,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  277;  Sullivan  v.  Redfield,  23 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    13,597,    1    Paine   441,    1    Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  477 ;    Wintermute  v.  Redington,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,89-6,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  239. 

1.  Gill  v.  Wells,  22  Wall.  (U.  S.)  1,  22 
L.  ed.  699;  Cerealine  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bates,  101 
Fed.  272,  41  C.  C.  A.  341;  Alexandria  Bank  v. 
Wilson,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  856,  2  Cranch  C.  C. 
5;  Barrett  v.  Hall,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,047,  1 
Mason  447,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  207;  Dixon  V. 
Moyer,  7  ^Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,931,  4  Wash.  68,  1 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  324;  Hovey  v.  Stevens,  12  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,746,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  567,  3 
Woodb.  &  M.  17;  Lowell  v.  Lewis,  15  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  8,568,  1  Mason  182,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
131;  Clark  v.  Adie,  2  App.  Cas.  315,  46  L.  J. 
Ch.  585,  36  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  923;  Foxwell  v. 


Bostock,  4  De  G.  J.  &  S.  298,  10  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  144,  12  Wkly.  Rep.  723,  69  Eng.  Ch.  231, 
46  Eng.  Reprint  934;  Macfarlane  v.  Price,  1 
Stark.  199,  18  Rev.  Rep.  760,  2  E.  C.  L.  82. 

2.  Hovey  v.  Stevens,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,746, 

2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  567,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  17. 

3.  Webster  Loom  Co.  v.  Higgins,  105  U.  S. 
580,    26   L.   ed.    1177;    Ives   v.  Hamilton,    92 
U.  S.  426,  23  L.  ed.  494;  Brooks  v.  Bicknell, 
4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,944,  3  McLean  250,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  118;   Emerson  v.  Hogg,  8  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  4,440,  2  Blatchf.   1,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  77; 
Gibbs   v.    Ellithorp,    10   Fed.   Cas.   No.   5,383, 
McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    702;    Winans    v.    New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,863,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  213  [affirmed  in  21  How.  88, 
16  L.  ed.  68]. 

4.  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,944, 

3  McLean  250,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  118. 

5.  Wintermute  v.  Redington,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  239. 

6.  Ives  v.  Hamilton,  92  U.  S.  426,  23  L.  ed. 
494. 

7.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4920;  Davis  v. 
Bell,  8  N.  H.  500,  31  Am.  Dec.  202;   Carlton 
v.  Bokee,  17  Wall.   (U.  S.)  463,  21  L.  ed.  517; 
Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14  Wall.   (U.  S.)    620,  20 
L.  ed.  860 ;  Evans  v.  Eaton,  7  Wheat.   ( U.  S. ) 
356,  5  L.  ed.  472;  Gray  v.  James,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,718,  Pet.  C.  C.  394,   1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
120;  Ex  p.  Sanders,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,202. 

8.  Simpson  v.  Holliday,  L.  R.  1  H.  L.  315, 
35  L.  J.  Ch.  811;   Beard  v.  Egerton,  8  C.  B. 
165,    13    Jur.    1004,    19    L.    J.    C.    P.    36,    65 
E.   C.  L.    165;    Neilson   r.   Harford,   11   L.  J, 
Exch.  20,  8  M.  &  W.  806. 

9.  Lowell  v.  Lewis,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,568, 
1  Mason  182,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.   131. 

10.  Goodyear    v.    Day,    10    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
5,567. 

[V,  B,  2,  f] 


886     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


3.  CLAIMS  n  —  a.  In  General.  The  specification  must  conclude  with  a  definite 
and  distinct  claim  or  claims  pointing  out  the  feature  or  features  of  the  device  dis- 
closed which  the  applicant  regards  as  his  invention  or  discovery.12  The  claims  fix 
the  extent  of  the  protection  furnished  by  the  patent.13  The  protection  afforded 
by  the  patent  does  not  extend  to  all  that  is  shown  but  only  to  what  is  set  forth  in 
the  claim.14  While  the  specification  may  be  referred  to  to  limit  the  claim,  it  can 
never  be  made  available  to  expand  it.15  The  claims  are  essential  parts  which  the 
public  are  to  look  to  and  scrutinize  to  ascertain  their  rights,  and  must  control ; 16 
and  the  courts  should  be  careful  not  to  enlarge  by  construction  the  claim  which 
the  patent  office  has  admitted,  and  which  the  patentee  has  acquiesced  in,  beyond 
the  fair  interpretation  of  its  terms.17  If  a  patentee  describe  and  claim  a  part  only 
of  his  patent  he  is  presumed  to  have  abandoned  the  residue  to  the  public.18 

b.  Vague,  Indefinite,  and  Inaccurate  Claims.  The  claim  must  be  definite  and 
clear  so  as  to  inform  the  public  with  certainty  just  what  it  is  that  the  patent 
secures  as  a  monopoly,19  and  it  must  be  accurate.20  If  it  is  vague  and  indefinite 
it  is  void.21 

e.  Must  State  Means,  Not  Function  or  Result.  The  claim  must  state  the  physi- 
cal structure  or  elements  of  mechanism  by  which  the  function  desired  is  attained 
or  the  end  or  result  produced,22  and  is  not  valid  if  it  merely  states  the  function, 
end,  or  result.28 

d.  Breadth  of  Claim.     While  the  claim  should  include  such  elements  as  are 


11.  Correction   and   amendment   of   claims 
on  reissue  see  infra,  VIII. 

Excessive  claims  as  affecting  validity  of 
patent  see  infra,  VI,  B,  7,  b. 

12.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4888    [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)    p.  3383];   Roemer  v.  Neu- 
mann, 132  U.  S.  103,  10  S.  Ct.  12,  33  L.  ed. 
277;    Calkins   v.    Bertrand,   4    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
2,317,  2  Ban.  &  A.  215,  6  Biss.  494,  9  Off. 
Gaz.  795. 

If  the  claim  be  for  an  improvement,  it  must 
distinguish  the  new  from  the  old  so  that  it 
may  not  cover  any  parts  that  are  old.  Blake 
v.  Sperry,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,503,  2  N.  Y.  Leg. 
Obs.  251. 

Old  elements  shown  need  not  be  included. 
Goshen  Sweeper  Co.  v.  Bissell  Carpet- Sweeper 
Co.,  72  Fed.  67,  19  C.  C.  A.  13;  Hancock  In- 
spirator Co.  ».  Jenks,  21  Fed.  911;  Forbush 
v.  Cook,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,931,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  668. 

Omission  of  essential  element  is  fatal. 
Doubleday  v.  Beatty,  11  Fed.  729. 

Claim  not  supported  by  description  is  void. 
Knox  v.  Quicksilver  Min.  Co.,  4  Fed.  809; 
Huggins  v.  Hubby,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,839. 

In  designs  a  claim  to  "  the  design  shown  " 
is  sufficient.  Dobson  v.  Dorman,  118  U.  S.  10, 
6  S.  Ct.  946,  30  L.  ed.  63. 

The  object  of  the  claim  is  to  eliminate  or 
disclaim  what  is  old.  Plimpton  v.  Spiller,  6 
Ch.  D.  412,  47  L.  J.  Ch.  211,  7  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  56,  26  Wkly.  Rep.  285 ;  Hinks  v.  Safety 
Lighting  Co.,  4  Ch.  D.  607,  46  L.  J.  Ch.  185, 
36  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  391. 

13.  McClain  v.  Ortmayer,  141  U.  S.  419,  12 
S.  Ct.  76,  35  L.  ed.  800;  Sutter  v.  Robinson. 
119  U.  S.  530,  7  S.  Ct.  376,  30  L.  ed.  492; 
Burns  v.  Meyer,  100  U.  S.  671,  25  L.  ed.  738; 
Merrill  v.  Yeomans,  94  U.  S.  568,  24  L.  ed. 
235;    Untermeyer   v.   Jeannot,   20   Fed.    503; 
Cimiotti  Unhairing  Co.  v.  American  Fur  Re- 
fining Co.,  116  Off.  Gaz.  1452;  Lehigh  Valley 

[V,  B,  3.  a] 


R.  Co.  v.  Mellon,  20  Off.  Gaz.  1891;  Masury  v. 
Anderson,  4  Off.  Gaz.  55. 

14.  In  re  Seabury,  23  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
377 ;  U.  S.  Peg- Wood,  etc.,  Co.  v.  B.  F.  Sturte- 
vant  Co.,  122  Fed.  470  [affirmed  in  125  Fed. 
378,  60  C.  C.  A.  244] ;   Ingham  v.  Pierce,  31 
Fed.  822;   Toohey  v.  Harding,  1  Fed.   174,  4 
Hughes  253;    Blake  v.  Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   1,504,  6  Blatchf.   195,   3   Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
294 ;  Ex  p.  Tillman,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,050. 

15.  McClain  v.  Ortmayer,  141  U.  S.  419,  12 
S.  Ct.  76,  35  L.  ed.  800. 

16.  Untermeyer  v.  Jeannot,  20  Fed.  503. 

17.  Burns  v.  Meyer,  100  U.  S.  671,  25  L.  ed. 
738. 

18.  McClain  v.  Ortmayer,  141  U.  S.  419,  12 
S.  Ct.  76,  35  L.  ed.  800;  Keystone  Bridge  Co. 
v.  Phoenix  Iron  Co.,  95  U.  S.  274,  24  L.  ed. 
344. 

19.  O'Reilly  v.  Morse,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  62, 
14  L.  ed.  601 ;  Swift  v.  Whiaen,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    13,700,    2    Bond   115,    3  Fish.    Pat.    Cas. 
343;    In   re    Creveling,    117    Off.    Gaz.    1161; 
In  re  Dilg,  115  Off.  Gaz.  1067. 

20.  In  re  Creveling,  117  Off.  Gaz.   1167. 

21.  Consolidated  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Keesport  Light  Co.,  159  U.  S.  465,  16  S.  Ct. 
75,  40  L.  ed.  221;   Brickill  v.  Baltimore,  50 
Fed.  274;   Brickill  V.  Hartford,  49  Fed.  372; 
Edgarton  v.  Furst,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  9-  Fed.  450, 
10  Biss.  402;   Blake  v.  Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,504,  6  Blatchf.  195,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  294. 

22.  O'Reilly   v.   Morse,    15    How.    (U.    S.) 
62,   14  L.  ed.  601;   Canda  v.  Michigan  Mal- 
leable Iron  Co.,  124  Fed.  486,  61  C.  C.  A.  194; 
National  Meter  Co.  v.  Neptune  Meter  Co.,  122 
Fed.  82  [affirmed  in  129  Fed.  124,  63  C.  C.  A. 
626];  In  re  Creveling,   117  Off.  Gaz.  1161. 

23.  Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Ruby  Match  Co., 
127    Fed.    341;    Boyden    Power-Brake    Co.   v. 
Westinghouse,  70  Fed.  816,   17  C.  C.  A.  430 
[affirmed   in    83    Off.    Gaz.    1067].     And    see 
supra,  II,  A,  4;  II,  B,  4. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     887 


necessary  to  produce  the  desired  result,24  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  claim  specify 
in  detail  mechanism  which  constitutes  the  invention;25  but  it  may  refer  to  the 
elements  of  mechanism  by  broad  terms  of  description  which  will  include  equivalent 
mechanism  for  the  purpose.26  The  inventor  may  make  a  generic  claim  including 
many  specific  forms.27 

e.  Alternative  Claims.     Claims  should  not  seek  to  include  two  elements  by 
referring  to  them  in  the  alternative  but  should  use  some  broad  term  of  description 
applicable  to  both.28 

f.  Multiplicity  of  Claims.     While  a  number  of  claims  may  be  made  in  a  single 
patent,29  they  should  contain  material  differences  and  should  not  consist  of  mere 
repetitions  in  varying  phraseology  of  the  same  thing.30     A  needless  multiplicity 
of  claims  calls  for  a  limited  construction  of  them,81  and  the  patent  maybe  invalid 
because  of  ambiguity.82 

4.  DRAWINGS.     The  drawings  must  be  referred  to  in  the  specifications  ^  and 


24.  In  re  Creveling,  117  Off.  Gaz.  1167. 
Omission   of  understood   element  will  not 

invalidate.  Chicago  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v. 
Miller  Ladder  Co.,  133  Fed.  541,  66  C.  C.  A. 
517. 

25.  Schroeder   v.   Brammer,    98    Fed.   880; 
Taylor   v.   Sawyer   Spindle  Co.,   75  Fed.   301, 
22  C.   C.  A.  203.     And  see  General   Electric 
Co.    v.    Bullock    Electric   Mfg.   Co.,    152   Fed. 
427,  81  C.  C.  A.  569  [reversing  146  Fed.  552]. 

Limiting  claims. —  Where  there  are  many 
devices  on  the  market  which  closely  resemble 
each  other  in  appearance  and  structure,  it  is 
necessary  for  an  applicant  for  a  patent  for  a 
similar  device  to  carefully  limit  and  dif- 
ferentiate his  claims  in  his  application.  In  re 
Hoey,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  416. 

26.  Rosell  v.  Allen,  16  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
559;  Hill  v.  Hodge,  12  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  528; 
Dolbear  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  126  U.  S. 
1,  8  S.  Ct.  778,  31  L.  ed.  863;  Carver  v.  Brain- 
tree  Mfg.  Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,485,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.   141,  2  Story  432;  Merrill  v.  Yeo- 
mans,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,472,  1  Ban.  &  A.  47, 
Holmes  331,  5  Off.  Gaz.  268    [affirmed  in  94 
U.  S.  568,  24  L.  ed.  235]  ;  American  Sulphite 
Pulp  Co.  v.  Howland  Falls  Pulp  Co.,  80  Off. 
Gaz.  515. 

27.  Bowers  v.  Pacific  Coast  Dredging,  etc., 
Co.,  99   Fed.   745;    Brickill  v.  New  York,  98 
Fed.   113;    Wilcox,  etc.,  Sewing-Mach.   Co.  v. 
Merrow  Mach.  Co.,  93  Fed.  206,  35  C.  C.  A. 
269,    85    Off.    Gaz.     1078;    Von    Schmidt    v. 
Bowers,  80  Fed.  121,  25  C.  C.  A.  323.     And 
see   Macnamara   v.   Hulse,   C.   &   M.   471,   41 
E.  C.  L.  258 ;  Thomas  v.  Foxwell,  5  Jur.  N.  S. 
37  [affirmed  in  6  Jur.  N.  S.  271]. 

Claim  may  be  in  broad  terms  which  apply 
to  the  means  shown  and  to  equivalents  see 
In  re  Green,  20  D.  C.  237 ;  Tilghman  v.  Proc- 
tor, 102  U.  S.  707,  26  L.  ed.  279;  Manhattan 
Gen.  Constr.  Co.  v.  Helios-Upton  Co.,  135  Fed. 
785;  Electric  Smelting  Co.  v.  Carborundum 
Co.,  102  Fed.  618,  42  C.  C.  A.  537;  Pittsburgh 
Reduction  Co.  v.  Cowles  Electric  Smelting, 
etc.,  Co.,  55  Fed.  301;  Brush  Electric  Co.  v. 
Electric  Imp.  Co.,  52  Fed.  965;  Poppenhusen 
v.  Falke,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,280,  5  Blatchf. 
46,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  213;  Poppenhusen  v. 
New  York  Gutta  Percha  Comb  Co.,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1L283,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  62;  Union 
Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Nixon,  24  Fed.  Cas. 


No.  14,391,  2  Ban.  &  A.  244,  1  Flipp.  491,  9 
Off.  Gaz.  691;  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v. 
White,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,396,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
60,  7  Off.  Gaz.  698,  877,  11  Phila.  (Pa.)  479, 
1  Wkly.  Notes  Cas.  (Pa.)  363. 

Terms  covering  forms  not  yet  invented  may 
be  used.  U.  S.  Glass  Co.  v.  Atlas  Glass  Co., 
88  Fed.  493. 

Omission  of  elements  which  would  be  un- 
derstood is  not  fatal.  Taylor  v.  Sawyer 
Spmdle  Co.,  75  Fed.  301,  22  C.  C.  A.  203 
[affirming  69  Fed.  837] ;  American  Autom- 
aton Weighing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Blauvelt,  50 
Fed.  213;  Wells  v.  Jacques,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,398,  1  Ban.  &  A.  60,  5  Off.  Gaz.  364. 

Sub-combination  in  machine  not  useful 
alone  may  be  claimed.  Roberts  v.  H.  P.  Nail 
Co.,  53  Fed.  916;  Wells  v.  Jacques,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,398,  1  Ban.  &  A.  60,  5  Off.  Gaz. 
364. 

28.  Burr  v.  Smith,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,196; 
Union  Paper-Bag  Co.  v.  Nixon,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,386,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  402,  4  Off.  Gaz. 
31;    Wheeler    v.    Simpson,    29   Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,500,  1  Ban.  &  A.  420,  6  Off.  Gaz.  435. 

29.  In  re  Carpenter,  24  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
110;  Carlton  v.  Bokee,  17  Wall.   (U.  S.)   463, 
21  L.  ed.  517;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co. 
v.  Elmira,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  257;  Britton  v. 
White  Mfg.  Co.,  61   Fed.  93;   Brush  Electric 
Co.  v.  Electrical  Accumulator  Co.,  47  Fed.  48 ; 
Tompkins  v.  Gage,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,088,  5 
Blatchf.  268,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  577;  Comput- 
ing Scale  Co.  v.  Automatic  Scale  Co.,  119  Off. 
Gaz.  1586. 

30.  Thomson-Houston    Electric    Co.    u.    El- 
mira, etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  257    [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  71   Fed.   396,    18   C.   C.  A. 
145]. 

31.  Carlton  v.  Bokee,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  463, 
21  L.  ed.  517. 

32.  Carlton  v.  Bokee,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  463, 
21  L.  ed.  517. 

33.  Pract.  Rule  38. 

Drawings  considered  in  connection  with 
claims  and  specifications  see  Cutler-Hammer 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Union  Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  147  Fed. 
266. 

That  drawings  are  part  of  the  patent  see 
Hogg  v.  Emerson,  11  How.  (U.  S.)  587,  13 
L.  ed.  824;  Brammer  v.  Schroeder,  106  Fed. 
918,  46  C.  C.  A.  41 ;  Howes  v.  Nute,  12  Fed. 

[V,  B,  4] 


888     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


must  clearly  show  the  invention.54  They  are  not  required  to  be  working  draw- 
ings or  made  to  an  exact  scale,  but  it  is  sufficient  if  they  disclose  the  inventor's 
idea  so  that  one  skilled  in  the  art  may  make  it.35  They  may  be  signed  by  the 
applicant  or  his  attorney,  but  there  must  be  two  witnesses  to  the  signature.36 

5.  OATH  —  a.  Necessity.  It  is  provided  by  statute  that  the  applicant  must 
make  oatli  that  he  believes  himself  to  be  the  original  and  first  inventor  of  the  thing 
for  which  he  solicits  a  patent ;  that  he  does  not  know  and  does  not  believe  that 
the  same  was  ever  before  known  or  used  and  shall  state  of  what  country  he  is  a 
citizen.37  In  construing  this  statute  it  has  been  held  that  the  taking  of  the  oath 
is  but  a  prerequisite  to  the  granting  of  the  patent  and  in  no  sense  essential  to  its 
validity.38  The  patent  office  also  requires  that  he  shall  state  that  the  invention 
has  not  been  in  public  use  or  on  sale  in  this  country  or  described  in  a  printed 
publication  in  this  country  or  abroad  more  than  two  years  before  the  application 
was  filed  and  shall  give  the  date  of  foreign  patents  granted  upon  the  invention.39 

b.  By  and  Before  Whom  Made.  The  oath  must  be  made  by  the  inventor  if 
living  and  sane,40  and  if  dead,  by  the  executor  or  administrator.41  It  may  be 
made  in  the  United  States  before  any  officer  authorized  to  administer  oaths;  and 
if  made  abroad  before  any  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  of  the  United  States  or 
before  any  notary  public,  judge,  or  magistrate  having  an  official  seal  and  author- 
ized to  administer  oaths42  the  authority  of  the  foreign  officer  shall  be  proved  by  a 
certificate  of  a  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  of  the  United  States.43 

e.  Absence  of  Written  Oath.  A  patent  is  not  invalid  merely  because  no 
written  oath  appears  among  the  papers  of  the  record,  since  it  is  to  be  presumed 
that  an  oath  was  taken.44 


Cas.  No.  6,790,  4  Cliff.  173,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Gas. 
263;  Swift  v.  Whisen.  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,700, 
2  Bond  115,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343. 

Designs. —  Reference  to  a  drawing  fully 
showing  the  design  is  sufficient.  In  re  Free- 
man, 23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  226;  Dobson  v. 
Dornan,  118  U.  S.  10,  6  S.  Ct.  946,  30  L.  ed. 
63.  Compare  In  re  Mygatt,  26  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  366.  In  an  application  for  a  design 
patent  for  a  font  of  type,  it  is  sufficient  to 
furnish  the  conventional  drawing  accepted  for 
years  by  the  patent  office,  and  it  is  not  neces- 
sary, under  the  patent  office  rules  relating  to 
designs,  to  show  or  describe  the  type  them- 
selves. In  re  Schraubstadter,  26  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  331. 

34.  Pract.  Rule  50. 

One  of  several  forms  shown  in  drawings. — 
Where  a  skilled  mechanic  could  construct  the 
three  forms  of  buffers  described  from  the 
specifications  and  drawings,  the  specification 
in  that  respect  is  sufficient,  although  but  one 
form  is  shown  in  the  drawings.  Pullman 
Palace-Car  Co.  v.  Wagner  Palace-Car  Co.,  38 
Fed.  416. 

35.  Dashiell  v.  Grosvenor,   162  U.  S.  425, 
16  S.  Ct.  805,  40  L.  ed.  1025;   Crown  Cork, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Aluminum  Stopper  Co.,  108  Fed. 
485,    48    C.   C.   A.   72;    American   Hide,  etc., 
Splitting,   etc.,  Mach.   Co.   v.  American  Tool, 
etc.,  Co.,   1   Fed.  Cas.  No.  302,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  284,  Holmes  503 ;  Johnston  v.  Woodbury, 
97  Off.  Gaz.  402. 

36.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §  4889   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3383];  In  re  Henry,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,371,  Me  Arthur  Pat.  Cas.  467. 

37.  IT.   S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4892    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3384]. 

Date  of  oath. —  The  burden  is  on  the  party 

[V,  B,  4] 


questioning  the  correctness  of  the  date  given 
at  the  date  of  the  oath  to  an  application  for 
a  patent.  O'Connell  v.  Schmidt,  27  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  77. 

38.  Kennedy  v.  Hazelton,  128  U.  S.  667,  9 
S.  Ct.  202,  32  L.  ed.  576;  Child  v.  Adams,  5 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,673,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189,  3 
Wall.  Jr.  20;    Crompton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  6 
Fed.   Cas.  No.   3,406,   3   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536; 
Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,600, 

1  Gall.  429,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  28. 

Oath  of  executor  to  support  proper  amend- 
ment after  inventor's  death  is  not  necessary. 
De  la  Vergne  Refrigerating  Mach.  Co.  r. 
Featherstone,  147  U.  S.  209,  13  S.  Ct.  283,  37 
L.  ed.  138. 

The  statute  is  directory  to  the  officer  who 
superintends  the  issuing  of  letters  patent,  but 
is  not  a  condition  to  the  validity  of  the 
patent.  Dyer  r.  Rich,  1  Mete.  (Mass.)  180. 

Innocent  mistake  as  to  citizenship  in  oath 
is  not  fatal.  Tondeur  v.  Chambers,  37  Fed. 
333. 

39.  Pract,  Rule  46. 

40.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4895    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3385]. 

41.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4896. 

42.  Jurat   need   not   be   dated.      French    v. 
Rogers,   9   Fed.   Cas.  No.  5,103,    1   Fish.   Pat. 
Cas.  133. 

43.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4892   [U.  S. 
Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.   3384];   U.   S.  Rev.   St. 
(1878)   §  4896,  as  amended  March  3,  1003,  32 
U.  S.  St.  at  L.  1226  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  Suppl. 
(1905)   p.  665]. 

44.  Holmes  Burglar  Alarm  Tel.  Co.  v.  Do- 
mestic Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Fed.  220,  51  Off.  Gaz. 
2083;    Hancock    Inspirator    Co.    ?;.    Jenks,    21 
Fed.   911;    Hartshorn  r.   Eagle   Shade   Roller 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     889 


6.  FEES.     In  the  United  States  the  first  fee  of  fifteen  dollars  must  be  paid 
upon  filing  the  application;45  and  the  final  fee  of  twenty  dollars  must  be  paid 
within  six  months  after  the  application  is  passed  and  allowed  by  the  patent  office.46 
This  means  six  calendar  months.47     The  patent,  however,  is  not  subject  to  collat- 
eral attack  upon  the  ground  that  the  fee  was  not  paid.48 

7.  SUBJECT-MATTER  OR  SCOPE.     An  application  for  a  patent  should  relate  to  a 
single  subject  and  should  claim  only  one  invention,  or  if  more  than  one  only  such 
as  are  related  and  dependent.     The  application  cannot  include  independent  inven- 
tions,49 although  it  may  include  related  inventions.50     The  doctrine  of  the  patent 
office  that  applications  for  patents  shall  not  be  severable  except  on  structural  lines 
must  be  held  to  mean  upon  physical  lines  which  actually  divide  the  machine  into 
separate  parts,51  but  his  decision  is  not  conclusive  and  may  be  passed  upon  by  the 
courts.52 

C.  Examination  and  Proceedings  in  Patent  Office  —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  The 
commissioner  of  patents  is  required  by  law  to  make  or  cause  to  be  made  by  the 
primary  examiner  an  examination  for  each  application  for  patent  and  to  deter- 
mine whether  the  applicant  has  complied  with  the  law  and  discloses  a  new  inven- 
tion which  is  sufficiently  useful  and  important  to  warrant  the  grant  of  a  patent.53 


Co.,  18  Fed.  90;  Crompton  v.  Belknap  Mills, 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,406,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536; 
De  Florez  v.  Raynolds,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,742, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  331,  16  Blatchf.  39-7;  Whittemore 
r.  Cutter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,600,  1  Gall.  429, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  28;  Crompton  v.  Belknap 
Mills,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,285,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  536. 

Recitals  in  letters  patent  in  the  absence  of 
fraud  are  conclusive  evidence  that  the  neces- 
sary oaths  were  taken  before  the  patent  was 
granted.  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  10  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  516,  20  L.  ed.  33. 

45.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §§   4893,  4934 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.   (1901)   pp.  3354,  3400]. 

46.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4885   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3382]. 

47.  Economy    Feed    Water-Heater    Co.    v. 
Lamprey  Boiler  Furnace-Mouth  Protector  Co., 
65  Fed.   1000,   13  C.  C.  A.  271    [affirming  62 
Fed.    590]  ;    Crompton   v.    Belknap    Mills,    30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,285,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536. 

48.  In  Canada  the  fee  when  application  is 
filed  is  sixty  dollars  for  eighteen  years,  forty 
dollars  for  twelve  years,  and  twenty  dollars 
for  six  years.     Pat.  Act,  56  Viet.  c.  34,   §  4. 

49.  Sessions  v.  Romadka,  145  U.  S.  29,  12 
S.  Ct.   799,  36  L.  ed.   609   [reversing  21   Fed. 
124];   Gage  v.  Kellogg,  23  Fed.  891;  McKay 
v.  Dibert,  5  Fed.  587 ;  Barrett  v.  Hall,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,047,  1  Mason  447,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
207;  Root  v.  Ball,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,035,  4 
McLean  177,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  513;  Wyeth  v. 
Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.   18,107,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  23,  1  Story  273. 

50.  U.  S.  v.  Allen,  192  U.  S.  543,  24  S.  Ct. 
416,  48  L.  ed.  555,  109  Off.  Gaz.  549;  Hogg  v. 
Emerson,  11  How.   (U.  S.)  587,  13  L.  ed.  824; 
Maxheimer  v.  Meyer,  9  Fed.  460,  20  Blatchf. 
17;    Adams   v.  Jones,    1   Fed.   Cas.  No.  57,   1 
Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    527,    2    Pittsb.     (Pa.)     73; 
American   Nicholson   Pavement   Co.  v.   Eliza- 
beth, 1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  311,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
424,  3  Off.  Gaz.  522  [modified  in  97  U.  S.  126, 
24  L.  ed.  1000]  ;  Densmore  v.  Schofield,  7  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,809,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   148;   Hay- 
den  v.  James,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,260;  Lee  v. 


Blandy,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,182,  1  Bond  361, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  89;  McComb  v.  Brodie,  15 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,708,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  384, 
1  Woods  153,  2  Off.  Gaz.  117;  Morris  v.  Bar- 
rett, 17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,827,  1  Bond  254,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  461;  Stevens  v.  Pritchard,  23 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,407,  2  Ban.  &  A.  390,  4 
Cliff.  417,  10  Off.  Gaz.  505;  Welling  v.  Rub- 
ber-Coated Harness  Trimming  Co.,  29  Fed. 
Cas,  No.  17,383,  2  Ban.  &  A.  1,  7  Off.  Gaz. 
608.  And  see  Act  England  (1883),  §  33,  46 
&  47  Viet.  c.  57. 

Process  and  product  may  be  included  in  one 
patent.  Welling  v.  Rubber-Coated  Harness 
Trimming  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,383,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  1,  7  Off.  Gaz.  608. 

A  rule  of  the  patent  office  requiring  divi- 
sion between  process  and  apparatus  in  all 
cases  is  invalid  because  arbitrary.  U.  S.  v. 
Allen,  102  U.  S.  543,  24  S.  Ct.  416,  48  L.  ed. 
555,  109  Off.  Gaz.  549. 

51.  Fassett  v.  Ewart  Mfg.  Co.,  58  Fed.  360 
[affirmed  in  62  Fed.  404,   10  C.  C.  A.  441]. 
Whether   an  invention  or  improvement   shall 
be  embraced  in  one  or  in  several  patents  is 
a  question  as  to  which  some  discretion  must 
be  left  to  the  head  of  the  patent  office.     U.  S. 
v.   Allen,    192   U.    S.   543,   24  S.   Ct.    416,  48 
L.  ed.  555;  Bennett  v.  Fowler,  8  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
445,  19  L.  ed.  431;  In  re  Frasch,  27  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  25. 

52.  Fassett  v.  Ewart  Mfg.  Co.,  58  Fed.  360 
[affirmed  in  62  Fed.  404,  10  C.  C.  A.  441]. 

53.  Holloway  v.  Whiteley,  4  Wall.   (U.  S.) 
522,   18  L.  ed.  335;   Burr  v.  Duryee,  1   Wall. 
(U.  S.)  531,  17  L.  ed.  650,  660,  661;  Corning 
v.  Burden,   15  Plow.    (U.   S.)    252,    14  L.  ed. 
683;   In  re  Aiken,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.   107,  Mc- 
Arthur  Pat.  Cas.  126;  In  re  Cushman,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,513,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  569. 

English  practice. —  The  application  is  re- 
ferred by  the  controller  to  an  examiner  to 
determine  its  sufficiency.  Act  (1883),  §  6. 
If  compete  application  is  accepted  it  is  adver- 
tised (Act  (1883),  §  10)  and  any  one  may 
oppose  the  grant  within  two  months  after  pub- 
lication. Act  (1883),  §  11.  The  grant  may 

[V,  C,  1] 


890     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


The  statutory  requirement  that  lie  shall  give  the  applicant  such  reasons  and 
suggestions  as  will  enable  him  to  judge  of  the  experience  of  abandoning  or 
modifying  his  application  is  directory  merely  and  his  action  in  the  premises  is 
not  reviewable.54  He  should  decide  not  only  questions  of  law,  but  also  of  fact,55 
and  his  action  in  awarding  or  refusing  a  patent  is  judicial.56  The  decision  of  the 
examiner  or  board  of  examiners  is  not  conclusive  upon  him,  and  he  may  refuse  a 
patent  allowed  by  the  examiner.57  So  it  is  his  duty,  if  there  be  within  his  knowl- 
edge or  cognizance  any  substantial  or  reasonable  ground  why  a  patent  should  not 
issue,  to  refuse  the  patent,  whether  the  specific  objection  be  raised  and  acted  upon 
by  the  examiners  or  not.58  The  applicant  being  given  the  right  of  appeal,  the 
commissioner  will  not  determine  doubtful  questions  in  his  favor.59 

2.  REJECTION.     If  upon  such  examination  it  appears  that  the  applicant  is  not 
entitled  to  a  patent  as  claimed  the  application  will  be  rejected  and  the  reasons 
therefor  will  be  stated.60     The  application  may  be  rejected  for  want  of  diligence 
and  abandonment.61     The  rejection  will  be  reconsidered  upon  request  supported 
by  proper  argument  pointing  out  the  supposed  errors  therein.62 

3.  EVIDENCE  AT  HEARING.     The  patent  office  is  not  confined  to  technical  evi- 
dence in  rejecting  applications  but  may  base  its  action  upon  anything  which 
shows  the  facts  with  reasonable  certainty.63     The  burden  is  on  the  applicant  to 


be  opposed  by  one  interested  but  not  refused 
where  there  is  doubt.  Ex  p.  Sheffield,  L.  R. 
8  Ch.  237,  42  L.  J.  Ch.  356,  21  Wkly.  Rep 
233;  In  re  Bailey,  L.  R.  8  Ch.  60,  42  L.  J.  Ch. 
204,  27  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  430,  21  Wkly.  Rep. 
31;  In  re  Vincent,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  341,  15  Wkly. 
Rep.  524;  Matter  of  Spence,  3  De  G.  &  J. 
523,  7  Wkly.  Rep.  157,  60  Eng.  Ch.  406,  44 
Eng.  Reprint  1370;  Matter  of  Russell,  2  De  G. 
&  J.  130,  6  Wkly.  Rep.  95,  59  Eng.  Ch.  104, 
45  Eng.  Reprint  937;  Tolson's  Patent,  6  De  G. 
M.  &  G.  422,  4  Wkly.  Rep.  518,  55  Eng.  Ch. 
329,  43  Eng.  Reprint  1297;  In  re  Lowe,  25 
L.  J.  Ch.  454,  4  Wkly.  Rep.  429 ;  Ex  p.  Daly, 
Vern.  &  S.  499;  Re  Tolhausen,  14  Wkly.  Rep. 
551;  In  re  Stoll,  1  Wkly.  Rep.  472,  483. 
Caveat  against  sealing  must  be  with  leave 
of  the  lord  chancellor.  Re  Heathorn,  10  Jur. 
N.  S.  810,  10  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  802,  12  Wkly. 
Rep.  1068.  Opposition  referred  to  law  officer 
to  determine  if  patent  should  issue.  Ex  p. 
Manceaux,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  518,  18  Wkly.  Rep.  854; 
Ex  p.  Yates,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  1,  21  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
663,  18  Wkly.  Rep.  1,  153.  Law  officer  must 
decide  between  rival  claimants  and  not  seal 
both  patents.  Ex  p.  Henry,  L.  R.  8  Ch.  167, 
42  L.  J.  Ch.  363,  21  Wkly.  Rep.  233.  May 
order  sealing  on  conditions.  In  re  Daine,'  26 
L.  J.  Ch.  298,  4  Wkly.  Rep.  155.  May  oppose 
before  law  officer  and  if  he  orders  sealing  may 
oppose  before  lord  chancellor.  In  re  Mitchell, 
L.  R.  2  Ch.  343;  In  re  Vincent,  L.  R.  2  Ch. 
341,  15  Wkly.  Rep.  524;  Matter  of  Brennard, 
3  De  G.  F.  &  J.  695,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  690,  4  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  456,  64  Eng.  Ch.  543,  45  Eng. 
Reprint  1048.  Ruling  of  law  office  not  over- 
ruled except  for  fraud  or  new  evidence.  In  re 
Vincent,  L.  R.  2  Ch.  341,  15  Wkly.  Rep.  524. 
On  application  for  sealing,  witnesses  can  be 
examined  viva  voce.  In  re  Gething  L.  R.  9  Ch. 
633.  Time  for  application  for  sealing  may  be 
extended.  In  re  Hersee,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  518,  14 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  842;  In  re  Somerset,  15 
Ch.  D.  397,  42  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  635,  28  Wkly. 
Rep.  709;  In  re  Mackintosh,  2  Jur.  N.  S. 
1242,  5  Wkly.  Rep.  194.  Where  opposition 

[v,  c,  i] 


withdrawn  opposer  pays  costs.  In  re  Cobley, 
8  Jur.  N.  S.  106,  31  L.  J.  Ch.  333,  5  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  387 ;  Re  Ashenhurst,  2  Wkly.  Rep. 
3. 

54.  Ex  p.  Spence,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,228. 
And    see   Ex   p.    Munson,    17    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
9,933. 

55.  Hunt  t\  Howe,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,891, 
McArthur     Pat.     Cas.     366     ( abandonment )  ; 
Marcy    ?;.    Trotter,    16    Fed.    Cas.    No.    9,063 
(abandonment)  ;    Wickersham    v.    Singer,    29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,610,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  645 

(abandonment). 

Public  use  or  sale. — He  may  investigate  and 
determine  public  use  or  sale.  Mowry  v.  Bar- 
ber, 17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,892,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  563. 

56.  Butterworth  v.  U.  S.,  112  U.  S.  50,  5 
S.  Ct.  25,  28  L.  ed.   656;   U.   S.  v.  Duell,  86 
Off.  Gaz.  995. 

57.  Hull    v.    Patent    Com'r,    2    MacArthur 
(D.  C.)   90. 

58.  In  re  Drawbaugh,  9  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
219. 

59.  In  re  Kemper,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,687, 
Cranch  Pat.  Dec.  89,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  1. 

60.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4903    [U.  S. 
Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.   3389];    In  re  Wagner, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,038,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
510. 

In  England  the  crown  may  refuse  patent  at 
any  timo  before  sealing.  In  re  Schlumberger, 
2  Eq.  Rep.  36,  9  Moore  P.  C.  1,  14  Eng. 
Reprint  19-7.  Sealing  not  refused  for  formal 
defects.  In  re  Wirth,  12  Ch.  D.  303,  28  Wkly. 
Rep.  329. 

61.  Hunt  v.  Howe,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,891, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.    366;    Marcy  v.  Trotter, 
16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,063;  Wickersham  r.  Singer, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,610,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
645. 

62.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4903   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3389. 

63.  In  re  Drawbaugh,  9  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
219. 

Microscope  may  be  used  as  basis  for  con- 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     891 


show  the  patentability  of  the  thing  claimed  as  an  invention.64  The  oath  of  the 
applicant  i&primafcwie  evidence  of  the  novelty,  but  the  commissioner  has  power 
and  it  is  his  duty  to  resort  to  any  circumstances  legitimately  in  his  possession  for 
the  purpose  of  repelling  the  presumption.65 

4.  AMENDMENT  —  a.  In  General.  Where  objection  is  made  to  the  form  of  the 
application,  amendment  may  be  made  by  the  applicant  or  his  attorney  to  correct 
the  error,66  and  where  a  claim  is  rejected  the  applicant  or  his  attorney  may  amend 
it  to  avoid  the  references  cited  or  reasons  for  rejection  given.67  He  may  amend 
at  any  time  prior  to  the  entry  by  the  primary  examiner  of  a  final  order  of 
rejection.68 

b.  New  Matter.     All  amendments  must  be  within  the  scope  of  the  original 
disclosure  and  must  not  introduce  new  matter.69     An  improvement  upon  the  inven- 
tion disclosed  must  be  claimed  in  a  separate  application.70     A  claim  made  by 
amendment  to  matter  not  disclosed  in  the  application  as  originally  filed  is  invalid.71 
The    description    of    the   functions,    operation,   or  advantages  of  the  invention 
may  be  changed  so  long  as  there  is  no  change  in  the  disclosure  of  the  invention 
itself.72 

c.  Delay  in  Amending.     Under  express  statutory  provisions  amendment  or 
other  responsive  action  must  be  made  within  one  year  from  the  date  of  the  pre- 


clusion. Flora  v.  Powrie,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  195. 

Commissioner's  records. — Commissioner  may 
take  judicial  notice  of  his  own  records.  Cain 
v.  Park,  14  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  42. 

Ex  parte  affidavits. —  Cannot  reject  upon 
eac  parte  affidavits.  In  re  Alteneck,  MacArthur 
&  M.  (D.  C.)  353. 

Exhibition  of  experiments. —  Commissioner 
is  not  compelled  to  submit  to  an  exhibition 
of  experiments  at  the  discretion  of  applicant. 
Ex  p.  Spence,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,288. 

64.  In  re  Drawbaugh,  9  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
219;  Durham  v.  Seymour,  71  Off.  Gaz.  601. 

65.  In  re  Wagner,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,038, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  510. 

66.  Bowers  v.  Von  Schmidt,  63  Fed.  572. 

67.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4903   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3389];  McBerty  v.  Cook, 
16  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    133;  Croskey  v.  Atter- 
bury,    9    App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    207;    Edison   v. 
American  Mutoscope   Co.,   110   Fed.   660    [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  114  Fed.  926,  52 
C.  C.  A.  546];    Hillborn  v.  Hale,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  69  Fed.  958,  16  C.  C.  A.  569;   Railway 
Register  Mfg.  Co.  v.  North  Hudson  Co.  R.  Co., 
24  Fed.  793;    Collins  v.  White,   6   Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,019;   Ostergren  v.  Tripler,  95  Off.  Gaz. 
837. 

68.  Pract.  Rule  68;   Singer  v.  Braunsdorf, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,897,  7  Blatchf.  521 ;  In  re 
Dilg,  115  Off.  Gaz.  1067. 

69.  Lugsr     v.     Browning,     21     App.     Cas. 
(D.  C.)   201;  Hobbs  v.  Beach,  180  U.  S.  383, 
21   S.  Ct.  409-,  45  L.  ed.  586;   Eagleton  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  West  Bradley,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  Ill  U.  S. 
490,   4   S.    Ct.    593,   28   L.   ed.    493;    Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Sayles,  97  U.  S.  554,  24  L.  ed. 
1053;  Long  v.  Pope  Mfg.  Co.,  75  Fed.  835,  21 
C.  C.  A.  533;  Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Con- 
solidated   Car-Heating   Co.,    67    Fed.    121,    14 
C.   C.  A.  232;   Electrical  Accumulator  Co.  v. 
Brush.  Electric  Co.,  52  Fed.   130,  2   C.  C.  A. 
682;    Consolidated  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Keesport  Light  Co.,  40  Fed.  21    [affirmed  in 


73  Off.  Gaz.  1289] ;  Globe  Nail  Co.  v.  Superior 
Nail  Co.,  27  Fed.  450;  Milligan  v.  Lalance, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  21  Fed.  570;  In  re  Scott,  117 
Off.  Gaz.  278;  In  re  Dilg,  115  Off.  Gaz.  1067; 
Miehle  v.  Read,  96  Off.  Gaz.  426. 

The  settled  limitation  upon  the  amendment 
of  applications  in  respect  of  claims  is  that 
there  must  be  a  basis  for  them  in  the  de- 
scription and  specifications  of  the  application 
as  originally  filed.  In  re  Duncan,  28  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  457. 

In  England  complete  specification  may  am- 
plify but  cannot  change  invention  disclosed  in 
provisional  specification.  Vickers  v.  Siddell, 
15  App.  Cas.  496,  60  L.  J.  Ch.  105,  63  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  590,  39  Wkly.  Rep.  385;  Bailey 
v.  Robertson,  3  App.  Cas.  1055,  38  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  854,  27  Wkly.  Rep.  17;  Penn  v.  Bibby, 
L.  R.  2  Ch.  127,  36  L.  J.  Ch.  455,  15  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  399,  15  Wkly.  Rep.  208;  Lane 
Fox  v.  Kensington  Electric  Lighting  Co., 
[1892]  3  Ch.  424,  67  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  440; 
Nuttall  v.  Hargreaves,  [1892]  1  Ch.  23,  61 
L.  J.  Ch.  94,  65  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  597,  40 
Wkly.  Rep.  200;  United  Tel.  Co.  v.  Harrison, 
21  Ch.  D.  720,  51  L.  J.  Ch.  705,  46  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  620,  30  Wkly.  Rep.  724;  Hills  v.  Lon- 
don Gaslight  Co.,  5  H.  &  N.  312,  29  L.  J. 
Exch.  409 ;  Gadd  v.  Manchester,  67  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  569.  Complete  specification  may  in- 
clude additional  details  not  departing  from 
the  general  nature  of  the  invention.  Siddell 
1?.  Vickars,  30  Ch.  D.  92,  59-  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
575  [affirmed  in  15  App.  Cas.  496,  60  L.  J. 
Ch.  105,  63  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  590,  39  Wkly. 
Rep.  385] ;  Thomas  v.  Welch,  L.  R.  1  C.  P. 
192,  12  Jur.  N.  S.  316,  35  L.  J.  C.  P.  200; 
Moseley  v.  Victoria  Rubber  Co.,  57  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  142;  Woodward  v.  Sansum,  56  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  347. 

70.  See  note  supra,  69. 

71.  See  note   supra,   69. 

72.  Cleveland  Foundry  Co.  v.  Detroit  Vapor 
Stove   Co.,    131    Fed.    853,   68    C.   C.   A.    233; 
Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry  Electric  Co., 

[V,  C,  4,  e] 


892     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


ceding  action  by  the  patent  office.  Further  delay  works  an  abandonment  of  the 
application  unless  shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  commissioner  to  have  been 
unavoidable.73 

d.  Oath.  An  amendment  which  is  within  the  scope  of  the  original  specifica- 
tion does  not  require  a  new  oath.74  Otherwise,  however,  where  the  specification 
as  well  as  the  claim  is  enlarged  so  as  to  include  an  invention  not  before  described.75 

5.  ALLOWANCE.     If  the  invention  is  found  to  be  patentable  the  application  must 
be  passed  and  allowed.76     The  applicant  must  pay  the  final  fee  within  six  months 
thereafter  and  the  patent  must  issue  within  three  months  after  the  payment  of 
the  final  fee  or  the  application  is  forfeited.77 

6.  FORFEITURE  AND  RENEWAL.     A  case  forfeited  by  failure  to  pay  the  final  fee 
within  six  months  after  allowance  may  be  renewed  by  any  one  having  an  interest 
in  the  invention  at  any  time  within  two  years  after  the  original  notice  of  allow- 
ance.79    The  right  of  renewal,  whether  more  than  one  renewal  be  asked,  must  be 
exercised  within  the  two  years.79     The  original  papers  may  be  used  in  the  renewal 
application  but  a  new  fee  is  required.80 

7.  ABANDONMENT.     Upon  the  failure  of  the  applicant  to  complete  his  application 
and  prepare  rt  for  examination  within  one  year  after  the  filing  of  the  petition, 
and  upon  his  failure  to  take  proper  action  in  prosecution  of  it  within  one  year 
after  action  by  the  patent  office,  the  application  is  abandoned  unless  it  be  shown 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  commissioner  that  the  delay  was  unavoidable.81     The  com- 
missioner's ruling  upon  the  question  of  abandonment  of  an  application  is  final  and 
conclusive.82 

8.  INTERFERENCE83  —  a.  In  General.     "Where  two  parties  make  application  for 


58  Fed.  186,  7  C.  C.  A.  164;  Beach  v.  Inman 
Mfg.  Co.,  74  Off.  Gaz.  379. 

Changing  "  cement "  to  "  hydraulic  cement " 
is  not  new  matter.  National  Conduit  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Connecticut  Pipe  Mfg.  Co.,  75  Off.  Gaz. 
1361. 

Where  invention  resides  in  operation,  oper- 
ation cannot  be  changed.  American  Bell  Tel. 
Co.  v.  Century  Tel.  Co.,  109  Fed.  976. 

73.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4894.     Deci- 
sion of  commissioner  is  final.    Western  Elec- 
tric Co.  v.  Sperry  Electric  Co.,  58  Fed.  186, 
7  C.  C.  A.  164. 

74.  Phillips    v.    Sensenich,    31    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)  159 ;  Cutler-Hammer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Union 
Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  147  Fed.  266 ;  De  la  Vergne 
Refrigerating  Mach.  Co.  v.  Featherstone,   147 
U.  S.  209,  13  S.  Ct.  283,  37  L.  ed.  138;  John 
R.  Williams  Co.  v.  Miller,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  107 
Fed.   290.    And   see   Wirt   r.   Hicks,   45   Fed. 
256,    holding   that  where   an   application   for 
a  patent  is  made  by  the  inventor  in  his  life- 
time by  attorney  the  fact  that  changes  were 
made  by  the  attorney  in  the  specifications  and 
claims  without  new  oaths  will  not  invalidate 
the   patent,   since   a  discretion  as   to  the   al- 
lowance of  such  amendment  is  vested  in  the 
commissioner. 

The  changing  of  claims  for  inventions  de- 
scribed in  the  specifications  does  not  enlarge 
the  scope  of  the  application  and  seems  to  be 
well  within  the  authority  of  attorneys  to 
prosecute  it.  John  R.  Williams  Co.  v.  Miller, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  107  Fed.  290. 

75.  Eagleton  Mfg.  Co.  i\  West,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  Ill  U.  S.  490,  4  S.  Ct.  593,  28  L.  ed.  493. 

76.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4893    [U.   S. 
Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.  3384];    Butterworth  v. 
U.  S.,   112  U.  S.  50,   5  S.  Ct.   25,  28  L.  ed. 

[V,  C,  4,  e] 


656;  In  re  Seely,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,632, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  248;  In  re  Wagner,  28 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,038,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  510. 

77.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.     (1878)     §    4885,    as 
amended  May  23,  1-908,    Public  No.  133. 

78.  U.   S/Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4897    [U.  S. 
Comp.    St.    (1901)    p.   3386];    Christensen   v. 
Noyes,   15  App.   Cas.    (D.  C.)    94;    Bowers  V. 
San  Francisco  Bridge  Co.,  69  Fed.  640. 

79.  Weston    Electrical    Instrument    Co.    v. 
Empire   Electrical   Instrument   Co.,   131    Fed. 
90    [affirmed  in    136   Fed.    599,    69   C.   C.   A. 
329-] ;  In  re  Atty.-Gen.,  70  Off.  Gaz.  493. 

80.  Pract.  Rule  176. 

81.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.     (1878)     §    4894,    as 
amended  March   3,   1897,  29  U.  S.  St.  at  L. 
692  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3384].     Two 
years  were  allowed  by  statute  upon  applica- 
tions filed  before  Jan.  1,  1898. 

Delay  caused  by  patent  office  does  not  work 
abandonment.  Dolbear  v.  American  Bell  Tel. 
Co.,  126  U.  S.  1,  8  S.  Ct.  778,  31  L.  ed.  863; 
Adams  v.  Jones,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  57,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  527,  2  Pittsb.  (Pa.)  73;  Crown 
Cork,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Aluminum  Stopper  Co.,  96 
Off.  Gaz.  2573. 

Negligence   of   attorney    is    no   excuse   for 


delay.    Lay  v.   Indianapolis  Brush,  etc.,  Mfg. 
).,  120  Fed.  831,  57  C.  C.  A.  313. 


Co. 


In  England  complete  specification  must  be 
filed  within  nine  months  after  provisional 
specification  and  unless  accepted  in  twelve 
months  is  void.  Act  (1883),  §  8. 

82.  Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry  Electric 
Co.,  58  Fed.  186,  7  C.  C.  A.  164;  McMillin  v. 
Barclay,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,902,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  189,  4  Brewst.  (Pa.)  275,  3  Pittsb.  (Pa.) 
377. 

83.  Interfering  patents  see  infra,  VI,  D. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     893 


a  patent  upon  substantially  the  same  patentable  invention  an  interference  is 
declared  to  exist,  and  the  parties  are  permitted  to  present  proofs  in  support  of 
their  claims.84  The  question  to  be  determined  is  that  of  priority  of  invention.85 
Priority  is  ordinarily  the  only  thing  at  issue.86  The  right  of  one  of  the  parties  to 
make  a  claim  may  be  considered  as  an  ancillary  question.86*  The  question  of 
patentability  is  not  involved.87  The  proceedings  are  conducted  under  rules 
established  by  the  commissioner,88  but  are  analogous  to  proceedings  in  equity  and 
the  same  rules  of  evidence  are  applicable.89  The  issue  is  construed  in  accordance 
with  the  specification  of  the  party  who  first  made  the  claim.90 

b.  Between  Applicants  and  Patentees.  An  interference  must  always  involve 
an  application  for  a  patent,  but  may  be  declared  between  an  application  and  a 
patent  previously  granted  to  another  for  the  same  thing,  for,  although  the  patent 
office  cannot  cancel  the  patent  already  issued,  it  may  issue  a  second  patent  to  the 
real  inventor.91 


84.  U.   S.  Eev.   St.    (1878)    §   4904   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3389]. 

There  must  be  two  claimants  for  the  same 
invention  or  the  interference  fails.  Cushman 
V.  Lines,  10  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  156;  Tyson 
v.  Rankin,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,320,  McArtliur 
Pat.  Cas.  262;  Lattig  v.  Dean,  117  Off.  Gaz. 
1798. 

Failure  to  move  to  dissolve  an  interference 
on  the  ground  that  an  accepted  amendment 
to  one  of  the  applications  involves  new  mat- 
ter is  an  acquiescence  in  the  allowance  of  the 
amendment.  Croskey  v.  Atterbury,  9  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  207. 

Interference  in  fact. —  Christie  v.  Seybold, 
55  Fed.  69,  5  C.  C.  A.  33;  Bain  v.  Morse,  2 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  754,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  90; 
Nichols  v.  Harris,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,244, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  362;  Stephenson  v.  Hoyt, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,373,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
292.  Interference  in  fact  not  determined  by 
admissions.  Hutchinson  v.  Meyer,  12  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,957. 

Lack  of  interference  see  Podlesak  v.  Mcln- 
nerney,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  399-,  120  Off. 
Gaz.  2127;  O'Reilly  v.  Smith,  18  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,566,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  218;  Tyson 
v.  Rankin,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,320,  McArthur 
Pat.  Cas.  262;  Lallig  v.  Dean,  117  Off.  Gaz. 
1796. 

In  Canada  three  arbitrators  are  appointed 
to  determine.  Each  party  appoints  one,  and 
the  commissioner  of  patents  appoints  the 
third.  Pat.  Act,  35  Viet.  c.  26,  §  43;  Faller 
V.  Aylen,  8  Ont.  L.  Rep.  70,  per  Anglin,  J. 

85.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4904   [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)  p.  3389]. 

The  question  whether  the  disclosure  in  a 
party's  application  is  sufficient  is  not  in  issue. 
Bcchman  v.  Southgate,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
405 ;  Lotterhand  v.  Hanson,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  372;  Schupphaus  v.  Stevens,  95  Off. 
Gaz.  1452;  Ostergren  v.  Tripler,  95  Off.  Gaz. 
837 ;  Dodge  v.  Fowler,  82  Off.  Gaz.  595. 

86.  Swihart    v.    Mauldin,     19    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)  570;  Austin  v.  Johnson,  18  App.  Cas. 
(D.    C.)    83;    Hisey   v.    Peters,    6    App.    Cas. 
(D.    C.)    68,    71    Off.    Gaz.    892;    Bechman   v. 
Wood,  89  Off.  Gaz.  2462;  Hulett  v.  Long,  89 
Off.  Gaz.  1141;  Cross  v.  Phillips,  87  Off.  Gaz. 
1399;    Cushman  v.  Lines,  78  Off.  Gaz.  2051; 
Westinghouse  v.  Duncan,  66  Off.  Gaz.  1009. 


86a.  Podlesak  v.  Mclnnerney,  26  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  399;  Lindrnark  v.  Hodgkinson,  31 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  612;  MacMulkin  v.  Bollee, 
30  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  112;  U.  S.  Co.  v.  Moore, 
30  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  464. 

87.  Mell  v.  Midgley,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
534;  Sobey  v.  Holsclaw,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
65;  Johnson  v.  Mueser,  29  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
61;    Dunbar    v.    Schellenger,    29    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)   129;  Slaughter  v.  Halle,  21  App.  Cas. 
(D.   C.)    19;    Newton  v.  Woodward,   16  App. 
Cas.   (D.  C.)   568;  McBerty  v.  Cook,  16  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)   133;  Hill  v.  Hodge,  12  App.  Cas. 
(D.    C.)    528,    83    Off.    Gaz.    1211;    Doyle   v. 
McRoberts,  10  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   445,  79  Off. 
Gaz.    1029;    Hisey    v.    Peters,    6    App.    Cas. 
(D.    C.)     68,    71    Off.    Gaz.    892;    Latham    v. 
Armat,  95  Off.  Gaz.  232;  Hulett  v.  Long,  89 
Off.  Gaz.  1141. 

Res  judicata. —  Patentability  is  res  judi- 
cata.  Herman  v.  Fullman,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  259-;  Chandler  v.  Ladd,  5  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,593,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  493. 

There  must  be  an  adjudication  of  patenta- 
bility final  to  all  ordinary  intent  and  pur- 
poses before  the  court  can  be  called  upon  to 
determine  the  right  of  ownership  as  between 
rival  claimants.  Oliver  v.  Felbel,  20  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  255. 

88.  U.    S.   Rev.    St.    (1878)    §§    483,   4905 
[U.    S.    Comp.    St.     (1901)     pp.    272,    3390]; 
Spear    v.    Abbott,    22    Fed.    Cas.   No.    13,222; 
Jones  v.   Starr,   117   Off.   Gaz.    1495;   Ross  v. 
Loewer,  77  Off.  Gaz.  2141. 

Time  for  taking  testimony  is  within  the 
discretion  of  commissioner  of  patents.  Hop- 
kins v.  Lewis,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,688; 
O'Reilly  v.  Smith,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,566, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  218;  Wellman  r.  Blood, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,385,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas. 
432. 

89.  Pract.  Rule  159;  Blackford  v.  Wilder, 
104   Off.  Gaz.   580;   Nielson  v.  Bradshaw,   91 
Off.  Gaz.  644. 

90.  Podlesak  v.  Mclnnerney,  26  App.  Cas. 
(D.    C.)    399,    120   Off.   Gaz.    2127;    Tracy   V. 
Leslie,  14  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)   126,  87  Off.  Gaz. 
891;  Ruete  v.  Elwell,  87  Off.  Gaz.  2119.  And 
see  Sobey  v.  Holsclaw,  28  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
65. 

91.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4904    [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3389];  Pract.  Rule  93. 

[V,  C,  8,  b] 


894:     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


e.  Evidence — (i)  BURDEN  OF  PROOF.  The  burden  of  proof  in  an  interfer- 
ence case  is  upon  the  party  last  to  tile  his  application,92  and  where  his  opponent 
has  a  patent  granted  before  that  filing  date  he  must  prove  his  case  beyond  a 
reasonable  doubt.93  But  a  preponderance  of  evidence  will  be  sufficient  where 
the  question  involved  is  to  which  one  of  the  two  parties  making  separate  applica- 
tions for  patent  does  the  right  of  original  invention  or  discovery  of  the  subject- 
matter  in  issue  belong,94  or  where  the  application  of  the  junior  party  was  pending 
when  a  patent  was  granted  to  his  adversary.95  /Where  each  of  two  "parties  to  an 
interference  claims  a  disclosure  to  the  other,  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the 
one  who  lias  a  practical  knowledge  of  the  art,  and  against  the  one  who  has  not 
such  knowledge.96 


92.  Duff  v.  Latshaw,  31  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.) 
235;  Goolman  v.  Hobart,  31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
286;   Smith  v.  Smith,  31  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
518;    Braunstein    v.    Holmes,    30    App.    Cas. 
(D.   C.)    328;   Weeks  v.  Dale,   30  App.   Cas. 
(D.  C.)   498;  Gibbons  v.  Peller,  28  App.  Cas. 
(D.    C.)     530;    Lowrie    v.    Taylor,    27    App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  522;  Cleveland  v.  Wilkin,  27  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  311;  Bourn  v.  Hill,  27  App.  Cas. 
(D.   C.)    291;    Orcutt  v.  McDonald,   27   App. 
Cas.    (D.  C.)    228;  Fowler  v.  Dyson,  27  App. 
Cas.   (D.  C.)   52;  Ball  v.  Flora,  26  App.  Cas. 
(D.   C.)    394;    Herman  v.  Fullman,  23   App. 
Cas.    (D.  C.)    259;   Flora  v.  Powrie,  23  App. 
Cas.    (D.    C.)     19-5;    McKnight    v.   Pohle,    22 
App.    Cas.    (D.    C.)    219;    Flather   v,   Weber, 
21  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)    179;  Tyler  v.  Kelch,  19 
App.   Cas.    (D.  C.)    180.  And  see  supra,  IV, 
A,  5. 

Priority  of  invention  and  reasonable  dili- 
gence.—  He  must  show  not  only  priority  of 
invention,  but  also  reasonable  diligence  in 
adapting  and  perfecting  his  invention.  Fowler 
v.  Dyson,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  52;  Ball  v. 
Flora,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  394;  Funk  v. 
Haines,  20  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  285;  Hunter 
v.  Stikeman,  13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  214;  Mc- 
Cormack  v.  deal,  12  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  335. 

When  burden  of  proof  increased. —  The  bur- 
den imposed  upon  an  applicant  in  interference 
with  a  patentee  is  increased  by  adverse  de- 
cisons  of  all  the  patent  office  tribunals.  John- 
son v.  Mueser,  29  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  61; 
Parkes  v.  Lewis,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  1;  Or- 
cutt v.  McDonald,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  228; 
Bauer  v.  Crone,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  352; 
Macdonald  v.  Edison,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
527;  Hallwood  v.  Lalor,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
61;  Swihart  v.  Mauldin,  19  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
570;  Gedge  t?.  Cromwell,  19  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  192;  Howard  v.  Hey,  18  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  142. 

When  burden  shifts. —  Where  the  junior 
party  to  an  interference  shows  by  his  evi- 
dence a  disclosure  and  reduction  to  practice 
prior  to  the  filing  date  of  the  senior  party's 
application,  the  burden  of  proof  is  shifted  to 
the  senior  party  to  establish  a  date  of  in- 
vention and  reduction  to  practice  prior  to 
that  of  the  junior  party.  Herman  v.  Fullman, 
23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  259. 

93.  McKnight    v.     Pohle,     30    App.     Cas. 

(D.    C.)    92;    Weeks   v.    Dale,    30   App.   Cas. 

(D.  C.)  498;  Lewis  v.  Cronemeyer,  29  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  174;  Shuman  v.  Beall,  27  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  324,  329;  Rolfe  v.  Hoffman,  26 

[V,  C,  8,  C,  (I)] 


App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  336;  French  v.  Halcomb,  26 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  307;  Quist  v.  Ostrom,  23 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  69;  Sendelbach  v.  Gillette, 
22  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  168;  Gallagher  v.  Hast- 
ings, 21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  88;  Dashiell  v. 
Tasker,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  64;  Meyer  v. 
Sarfert,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  26;  Gtedge  v. 
Cromwell,  19  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  192;  Sharer 
v.  McHenry,  19  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  158; 
Reichenbach  v.  Kelley,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
333;  Fefel  v.  Stocker,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
317;  Locke  v.  Boch,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  75; 
Kelly  v.  Fynn,  16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  573; 
Nielson  v.  Bradshaw,  16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
92;  Williams  v.  Ogle,  14  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
145;  Guilbert  v.  Killinger,  13  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  107;  Doyle  v.  McRoberts,  10  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  445;  Hill  v.  Parmelee,  9  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  503;  La  Flare  v.  Chase,  8  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  83. 

A  limitation  on  this  doctrine  is  that'  where 
a  patent  was  inadvertently  granted  to  one 
party  during  the  pendency  of  his  opponent's 
application  both  parties  are  to  be  treated  as 
if  they  were  applicants.  Cutler  v.  Leonard, 
31  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  297;  Jansson  v.  Lars- 
son,  30  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  203;  De  Ferranti 
v.  Lyndmark,  30  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  417; 
Fenner  v.  Blake,  30  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  507; 
Shaffer  v.  Dolan,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  79 ;  Wat- 
son v.  Thomas,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  65; 
Miehle  v.  Read,  18  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  128; 
Hulett  v.  Long,  15  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  284 ;  Esty 
V.  Newton,  14  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  50;  Hunt  v. 
McCaslin,  10  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  527;  Paul 
v.  Hess,  115  Off.  Gaz.  251;  Furman  v. 
Dean,  114  Off.  Gaz.  1552. 

Disclosure  to  patentee. —  A  junior  appli- 
cant in  interference,  if  he  would  prevail  on 
the  ground  that  he  disclosed  the  invention  to 
his  rival,  who  has  received  a  patent,  must 
prove  such  disclosure  beyond  a  reasonable 
doubt.  Anderson  v.  Wells,  27  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  115. 

94.  Flather  v.  Weber,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
179. 

95.  Andrews  v.  Nilson,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
451. 

Burden  not  increased. —  The  burden  of  proof 
imposed  on  a  junior  applicant  in  interference 
proceedings  is  not  increased  by  the  granting 
of  a  patent  to  his  opponents  while  his  ap- 
plication is  pending.  Laas  v.  Scott,  26  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  354. 

96.  Alexander  v.  Blackman,  26  App.   Cas. 
(D.  C.)    541. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     895 


(n)  ADMISSIBILITY  AND  WEIGHT  AND  SUFFICIENCY.  In  deciding  the  ques- 
tion of  priority  of  invention  the  ordinary  rules  as  to  the  adrnissibility 97  and  weight 
of  evidence  are  applied.98  Corroboration  by  independent  circumstances  is 
necessary.99 

d.  Pleadings.     If  a  party  to  an  interference  wishes  to  take  testimony  to  show 


97.  Nielson  v.  Bradshaw,  16  App.  Gas. 
(D.  C.)  92,  91  Off.  Gaz.  644. 

The  evidence  must  relate  to  the  relative 
rights  of  the  parties  involved  and  evidence 
that  some  third  party  was  prior  to  both  is 
irrelevant.  Brown  v.  Blood,  22  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  216;  Garrels  v.  Freeman,  21  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  207;  Foster  v.  Antisdel,  14 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  552;  Yearsley  v.  Brook- 
field,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,131,  McArtlmr  Pat. 
Cas.  193. 

That  the  proofs  must  conform  to  the  issue 
see  Gibbons  v.  Peller,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
530;  McKnight  v.  Pohle,  22  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
219;  Sachs  v.  Hundhausen,  21  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  511;  Blackford  v.  Wilder,  21  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  1;  Tracy  v.  Leslie,  14  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  126;  Mergenthaler  v.  Scudder,  11 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  264. 

Ex  parte  affidavits  filed  after  the  close  of 
the  taking  of  testimony  to  correct  alleged 
errors  and  deficiencies  in  the  testimony  will 
not  be  considered.  Blackford  v.  Wilder,  104 
Off.  Gaz.  580;  Nielson  v.  Bradshaw,  91  Off. 
Gaz.  644. 

Exhibits  offered  may  be  examined  micro- 
scopically. Flora  v.  Powrie,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  195. 

Depositions  not  taken  in  accordance  with 
the  rules  will  not  be  considered.  Arnold  v. 
Bishop,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  552,  Cranch  Pat.  Dec. 
109,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  36;  Perry  v.  Cornell, 
19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,001,  Cranch  Pat.  Dec. 
130,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  66;  Jones  v.  Starr, 
117  Off.  Gaz.  1495. 

Testimony  in  one  interference  is  admissible 
in  a  second,  although  a  new  party  is  added. 
Carter  v.  Carter,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,475,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  388;  Eames  v.  Richards,  8 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,240. 

Testimony  of  inventor  is  admissible  and  so 
is  proof  of  declaration  by  him.  Yearsley  v. 
Brookfield,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,131,  McArthur 
Pat.  Cas.  193. 

An  inventor  who  has  assigned  his  rights  is 
not  a  competent  witness  nor  is  his  wife. 
Eames  v.  Richards,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,240. 

Objections  to  testimony  must  be  made  at 
proper  time.  Allen  v.  Alter,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
212;  Brown  v.  Hall,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,008, 
6  Blatchf.  401,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  531;  Smith 
v.  Flickenger,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,047,  Cranch 
Pat.  Dec.  116,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  46.  Tech- 
nical objections  must  be  taken  before  hearing. 
Meyer  v.  Rothe,  13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  97. 

98.  Signing  opponent's  application  as  a 
witness  is  strong  evidence  in  favor  of  the  lat- 
ter. Pickles  «.  Aglar,  13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
556;  Barr  Car  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
110  Fed.  972,  49  C.  C.  A.  194. 

Taking  assignment  from  opponent  is  evi- 
dence against  a  party.  Winslow  v.  Austin, 
14  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  137. 


Failure  of  party  to  deny  allegation  of  dis- 
closure to  him  by  opponent  is  conclusive 
against  him.  Ingersoll  v.  Holt,  15  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  519;  Winslow  v.  Austin,  14  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  137. 

Lo;ng  delay  in  making  application  casts 
doubt  on  claims  of  early  invention.  Fefel  v. 
Stocker,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  317;  Nielson 
v.  Bradshaw,  16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  92;  Beals 
v.  Finkenbiner,  12  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  23; 
Hunt  v.  McCaslin,  10  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  527. 

Unsupported  recollections  of  witnesses  as 
to  facts  occurring  several  years  before  are 
insufficient  to  establish  priority  of  invention 
over  an  earlier  patent.  Brooks  v.  Sacks,  81 
Fed.  403,  26  C.  C.  A.  456.  And  see  Caster 
Socket  Co.  v.  Clark,  110  Fed.  976. 

The  unsupported  testimony  of  the  inventor 
or  of  two  joint  inventors  will  not  be  accepted 
as  sufficient  proof.  Durkee  v.  Winquist,  31 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  248;  Taylor  v.  Lowrie,  27 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  527;  French  v.  Halcomb,  26 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  307;  Garrels  v.  Freeman, 
21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  207;  Petrie  v.  De 
Schweinitz,  19  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  386;  Sharer 
v.  McHenry,  19-  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  158;  Mer- 
genthaler v.  Scudder,  11  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
264;  Fay  v.  Mason,  120  Fed.  506  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  127  Fed.  325,  62  C.  C.  A. 
159]. 

99.  Podlesak  v.  Mclnnerney,  26  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  399,  120  Off.  Gaz.  2127. 

Failure  to  rebut  sworn  statement  of  dis- 
closure.—  The  rule  that  the  failure  of  a  party 
to  an  interference  to  rebut  the  sworn  state- 
ment of  his  adversary  that  he  had  fully  dis- 
closed the  invention  to  him  furnishes  strong 
evidence  that  the  latter  is  not  the  prior  in- 
ventor does  not  apply  where  there  is  no  evi- 
dence of  a  complete  disclosure,  and  merely 
unsatisfactory  evidence  of  a  partial  disclos- 
ure. Podlesak  v.  Mclnnerney,  26  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  399,  120  Off.  Gaz.  2127. 

Sufficiency  of  memorandum  to  prove  prior 
conception  see  French  v.  Halcomb,  26  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  307. 

Conduct  inconsistent  with  claims  see  Tal- 
bot  V.  Monell,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  108; 
Adams  v.  Murphy,  18  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  172; 
Reichenbach  v.  Kelley,  17  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
333;  Warner  17.  Smith,  13  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
Ill;  Hill  v.  Parmelee,  9  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
503 ;  Wells  v.  Reynolds,  4  App.  Cas.  ( D.  C. )  43  ; 
Barr  Car  Co.  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  110  Fed. 
972,  49  C.  C.  A.  194;  Jenner  v.  Dickinson,  117 
Off.  Gaz.  600;  Harter  v.  Barrett,  114  Off.  Gaz. 
975;  Hillard  v.  Brooks,  111  Off.  Gaz.  302. 

Evidence  held  sufficient  to  support  claim 
see  Turnbull  v.  Curtis,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
567. 

Evidence  insufficient  to  show  interference. — 
Podlesak  v.  Mclnnerney,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
399,  120  Off.  Gaz.  2127. 

[V,  C,  8,  d] 


896     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


invention  before  his  application  date,  lie  must  file  in  the  patent  office  a  statement 
within  a  time  fixed  and  before  seeing  his  opponent's  case  setting  forth  the  dates 
of  his  conception  and  development  of  his  invention.1  Such  statements  correspond 
to  the  pleadings,  and  the  party  will  not  be  permitted  to  prove  a  date  earlier  than 
alleged  therein.2  The  statements  are  not  considered  as  proofs.3 

e.  Second  Interference.  The  power  of  the  commissioner  is  not  exhausted  by 
once  deciding  a  question  of  interference  ;4  but  where  cause  is  shown,  he  may  per- 
mit the  unsuccessful  party  to  withdraw  his  application,  and  refile  it  and  then 
declare  anew  an  interference  between  the  same  parties.5 

9.  APPEAL  —  a.  In  General.  A  party  dissatisfied  with  the  rejection  of  his 
claims  by  the  primary  examiner  or  with  the  decision  in  an  interference  case  may 
.appeal  to  the  board  of  examiners-in-chief  ;6  if  dissatisfied  with  their  decision  he 
may  appeal  to  the  commissioner  in  person  ;7  and  if  dissatisfied  with  his  decision  he 
may  appeal  to  the  court  of  appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia.8  No  appeal  lies 
to  the  supreme  court  from  the  court  of  appeals,  in  a  case  brought  up  from  the 
patent  office.9  There  is  no  appeal  to  the  secretary  of  the  interior  from  the 
commissioner's  action  granting  or  refusing  patents  and  he  cannot  control  in  any 
way  such  action.10  \t: 

b.  Who  Entitled  to  Appeal.     One  to  whom  a  patent  is  allowed  has  no  grounds 


Admissions  as  proving  disclosure  see  Henry 
v.  Doble,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  33. 

1.  Pract.  Rule  110. 

Amendment  of  the  statement  may  be  per- 
mitted in  the  discretion  of  the  commissioner 
upon  proper  showing.  Cross  v.  Phillips,  14 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  228;  Stevens  v.  Seher, 
11  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  245;  Parker  v.  Appert, 
8  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  270. 

For  variance  between  allegations  and  proofs 
see  Herman  v.  Fullman,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
259;  Shaffer  v.  Dolan,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
79. 

2.  Pract.   Rule    110;    Parkes   r.   Lewis,   28 
App.  Cas.    (D.   C.)    1;   Lowrie  p.  Taylor,  27 
App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    522;   Neth  v.   Ohmer,  27 
App.    Cas.    (D.    C.)     319;    Fowler    v.    Boyce, 
27  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)  48;  Fowler  v.  McBerty, 
27    App.    Cas.     (D.    C.)     41,    46;     Funk    v. 
Haines,    20   App.    Cas.    (D.    C.)    285;    Bader 
r.  Vajen,  14  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   241;  Cross  v. 
Phillips,   14  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    228;   Stevens 
v.   Seher,    11    App.    Cas.    (D.    C.)    245;    Col- 
houn   v.  Hodgson,   5  App.   Cas.    \T>.  C.)    21; 
Hammond  v.   Basch,   115   Off.  Gaz.  804. 

Where  the  commissioner  has  refused  to 
permit  an  amendment  of  the  statement,  evi- 
dence to  show  dates  other  than  those  given  in 
the  statement  are  inadmissible.  Fowler  v. 
Boyce,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  55;  Fowler 
v.  Dyson,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  52;  Fowler  v. 
McBerty,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  41,  46.  The 
rule  will  not  be  ignored,  with  the  consent  of 
the  counsel,  unless  expressly  approved  by  the 
commissioner  of  patents  or  his  representa- 
tives. While  cases  may  often  arise  where  the 
interest  of  the  parties  to  interference  pro- 
ceedings and  the  public  will  be  best  sub- 
served by  permitting  dates  earlier  than  those 
set  forth  in  the  preliminary  statements  to  be 
proved,  this  should  be  done  tinder  the  super- 
vision of  and  with  the  approval  of  the  patent 
office.  Fowler  r.  Boyce,  supra. 

3.  Ingersoll  v.  Holt,  15  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
.519. 

[V,  C,  8,  d] 


4.  Matthews    v.    Wade,    16    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
9,292,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    143;    Potter    v. 
Dixon,    19    Fed.   Cas.   No.    11,325,   5   Blatchf. 
160,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  381. 

5.  Matthews    v.    Wade,    16    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
9,2923  McArthur  Pat.   Cas.   143. 

6.  U.    S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §    4909    [U.   S. 
Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.  3390];    U.  S.  v.  Allen, 
192  U.  S.  543,  24  S.  Ct.  416,  48  L.  ed.  555. 

Appeals  in  interference  and  from  rejection 
of  claims  are  separate  and  distinct  rights. 
Hisey  v.  Peters,  6  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  68. 

7.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.    (1878)    §    4910    [U.    S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3391]. 

Assistant  commissioner  may  hear  and  de- 
cide appeals.  U.  S.  v.  Duell,  17  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  575. 

8.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)   §  4911,  and  U.  S. 
St.  at  L.  p.  436,  §  9,  27  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  436 
[U.  S.   Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.   3391];    Butter- 
worth  v.  U.  S.,  112  U.  S.  50,  5  S.  Ct.  25,  28 
L.  ed.  656. 

Constitutionality  of  statutes. —  Statute  per- 
mitting appeals  to  the  court  of  appeals  is 
constitutional.  U.  S.  v.  Duell,  13  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  379  [affirmed  in  86  Off.  Gaz.  99o]  ; 
U.  S.  v.  Seymour,  10  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
294. 

Appeal  not  a  proceeding  in  equity. —  An  ap- 
peal to  this  court  in  an  interference  case  is 
not  a  proceeding  in  equity,  and  the  provi- 
sions of  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4915  [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3392],  providing  for 
relief  by  a  bill  in  equity  where  the  patent 
has  been  finally  refused,  do  not  apply.  It  is 
a  proceeding  at  law,  and  hence  a  decision  of 
the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  as  to 
the  statute  referred  to  does  not  apply.  Sobey 
v.  Holsclaw,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  65. 

9.  Rousseau  r.  Brown,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
73. 

10.  U.  S.  v.  Seymour,  10  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
294;   Butterworth  r.  U.  S.,   112  U.  S.  50,  5 
S.  Ct.  25,  28  L.  ed.  656;  U.  S.  v.  Duell,  86 
Off.  Gaz.  995. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     89T 


for  appeal.11  There  is  a  conflict  of  authority  as  to  whether  a  patentee  may  appeal 
from  an  adverse  decision  in  interference  proceedings ;  while  there  are  some  deci- 
sions affirming  the  right  of  appeal,12  the  weight  of  authority  is  against  it,13  it  being 
said  that  a  decision  awarding  priority  to  the  applicant  and  granting  him  a  patent 
does  not  invalidate  the  existing  patent.14 

c.  Formalities  and  Proceedings.     The  appellant  must  file  in  the  patent  office 
within  a  fixed  time  a  notice  of  appeal  to  the  court  of  appeals  together  with  his 
reasons  of  appeal  specifically  set  forth  in  writing  and  within  a  fixed  time  there- 
after must  file  in  court  a  certified  copy  of  all  the  original  papers  and  evidence  in 
the  case.15     The  commissioner  must  furnish  the  court  with  a  statement  in  writing 
of  the  grounds  for  his  decision  touching  the  points  involved  in  the  reasons  of 
appeal.16     The   commissioner  and  examiners  may   be  examined   orally  by  the 
court.17     Officers   of  the  patent  office   may  attend  the  hearing  and  advise  the 
court.18 

d.  Appealable  Decisions.     An  action  which  amounts  to  a  final  refusal  of  a 
patent  as  requested  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  rejection  and  appealable  whatever  form 
that  action  may  take.19     The  refusal  to  entertain  an  application  is  a  rejection,20 
and  the  requirement  that  an  application  be  divided  is  a  rejection  and  appealable.21 
Mere  interlocutory  or  preliminary  rulings  or  orders  are  not  appealable  but  only 
final  decisions.22     A  rejection  or  decision  by  the  commissioner  is  appealable  even 
where  there  has  been  no  decision  in  the  case  by  the  examiner  or  examiners-in- 
chief ,23    A  refusal  of  a  rehearing  is  not  appealable ; 24  nor  is  a  decision  dissolving 


11.  Cushman  v.  Lines,  10  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.) 
156. 

12.  Babcock  v.  Degener,  2   Fed.   Gas.  No. 
698,  McArthur  Pat.  Gas.  607 ;  Beach  v.  Tucker, 
2  Fed.  Gas.  No.  1,153. 

13.  Drake  v.  Cunningham,  7  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
4,060,  McArthur  Pat.   Gas.   378;   Hopkins  v. 
Barnum,   12   Fed.   Gas.  No.   6,685,  McArthur 
Pat.  Gas.  334;  Pomeroy  v.  Connison,  19  Fed. 
Gas.  No.   11,259,  Cranch  Pat,  Dec.   112,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Gas.  40;  Whipple  v.  Renton,  29 
Fed.    Gas.    No.    17,521,    McArthur   Pat.    Gas. 
332. 

14.  Pomeroy  v.  Connison,  19  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
11,259,  Cranch  Pat.  Dec.  112,  McArthur  Pat. 
Gas.  40. 

15.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §§   4912,  4913 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3391]. 

Reasons  of  appeal  must  be  clear  and  defi- 
nite. Blackinton  v.  Douglass,  3  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  1,470,  McArthur  Pat.  Gas.  622;  Green- 
ough  v.  Clark,  10  Fed.  Gas.  No.  5,784,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  173. 

16.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4913    [U.  S. 
Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    3391];     Chandler    v. 
Ladd,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,593,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  493;  In  re  Henry,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,371, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  467. 

17.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4913;  Richard- 
son v.  Hicks,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,783,  McAr- 
thur Pat.  Cas.  335;  In  re  Seely,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,632,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  248. 

18.  Perry    v,    Cornell,    19    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
11,001,  Cranch  Pat.  Dec.  130,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  66. 

19.  U.  S.  v.  Allen,  192  U.  S.  543,  24  S.  Ct. 
416,  48  L.  ed.  555;  Holloway  v.  Whiteley,  4 
Wall.   (U.  S.)   522,  18  L.  ed.  335. 

20.  Holloway  v.  Whiteley,  4  Wall.   (U.  S.) 
522,  18  L.  ed.  835. 

21.  Ex  p.  Frasch,  192  U.  S.  566,  24  S.  Ct. 
424,  48  L.  ed.  564;  U.  S.  v.  Allen,  192  U.  S. 

[57] 


543,  24  S.  Ct.  416,  48  L.  ed.  555  [overruling 
In  re  Frasch,  20  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  298; 
Blackford  v.  Wilder,  104  Off.  Gaz.  582]. 

22.  Davis  v.  Garrett,  28  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
9;  Jones  v.  Starr,  26  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)   64; 
Herman  V.   Fullman,   23   App.   Cas.    (D.   C.) 
259;   Hulett  v.  Long,   15  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
284;      Cross     v.     Phillips,     14     App.     Cas. 
(D.  C.)    228;  In  re  Marshutz,   13  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  228;  In  re  Neill,  11  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
584;    Westinghouse  v.   Duncan,  2   App.   Cas. 
(D.  C.)    131;  In  re  Chinnock,  21  D.  C.  594; 

Allen  v.  U.  S.,  116  Off.  Gaz.  2253;  Hillard  v. 
Brooks,  111  Off.  Gaz.  302;  Luger  v.  Brown- 
ing, 104  Off.  Gaz.  1123;  Swihart  v.  Mauldin, 
99  Off.  Gaz.  2322. 

Application  of  rule. —  A  motion  to  dissolve 
an  interference  in  the  patent  office  before  the 
final  hearing  of  the  question  of  priority,  and 
before  the  case  is  ready  for  such  hearing,  is 
an  interlocutory  proceeding,  and  is  not  ap- 
pealable to  the  court  of  appeals  unless  made 
so  by  statute  or  rule  of  court.  Allen  t;.  U.  S., 
26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  8. 

23.  Holloway  v.  Whiteley,  4  Wall.   (U.  S.) 
522,  18  L.  ed.  335;  In  re  Chambers,  5  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    2,581,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    641; 
Snowden  v.  Pierce,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,151,  2 
Hayw.  &  H.  386.    See,  however,  Ex  p.  Frasch, 
192  U.  S.  566,  24  S.  Ct.  424,  48  L.  ed.  564; 
and  the  dictum  to  the  contrary  in  Westing- 
house  v.  Duncan,  2  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)    131. 

24.  Greenwood    v.    Dover,    23    App.    Cas. 
(D.   C.)    251;   Ross  v.   Loewer,   9  App.   Cas. 
(D.  C.)   563;  In  re  Janney,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

7,209,  Cranch  Pat.  Dec.  143,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  86 ;  In  re  Rouse,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,086, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  286. 

Refusal  by  commissioner  to  reopen  case  and 
his  action  suppressing  testimony  for  irregu- 
larity are  not  appealable.  Jones  v.  Starr,  117 
Off.  Gaz.  1495. 

[V,  C,  9,  d] 


898     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


an  interference.25     The  reasons  for  a  decision  are  not  appealable,  but  only  the 
decision  itself.26 

e.  Review.  On  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  commissioner  of  patents  the 
court  is  limited  to  the  points  involved  in  the  reasons  of  appeal.27  And  the  exer- 
cise of  the  discretion  of  the  commissioner  of  patents  should  not  be  disturbed  save 
where  that  discretion  has  palpably  been  abused.23  Except  in  extraordinary  cases, 
the  court  will  not  disturb  the  findings  of  fact  of  the  patent  office.  Nevertheless 
the  court  is  not  bound  by  the  conclusions  drawn  from  such  facts,  unless  convinced 
that  such  conclusions  are  correct.29  The  question  of  identity  of  invention  is  in 
general  one  which  should  be  settled  by  the  experts  of  the  patent  office,  and  not 
by  the  court.30  And  the  question  of  the  operativeness  of  the  device  cannot  be 
considered  by  this  court  as  an  incident  of  the  main  question  of  priority.31  So  the 
court  will  not  consider  the  patentability  of  the  invention,  the  question  in  inter- 
ference cases  being  one  of  priority  and  not  of  patentability.32  The  unanimous 
decision  of  the  patent  office  will  not  be  reversed  except  for  clear  error.33  It  will 
not  be  reversed  on  any  mere  question  of  doubt  whether  it  be  correct  or  not.34  If 
the  decision  of  the  commissioner  is  correct  the  fact  that  his  opinion  is  erroneous 


25.  Herman    v.    Fullman,    23    App.    Gas. 
(D.    C.)    259;    Cushman    v.    Lines,    10   App. 
Gas.  (D.  C.)   156;  Hillard  v.  Brooks,  111  Off. 
Gaz.  302.   Contra,  see  Carter  v.  Carter,  5  Fed. 
Gas.    No.    2,475,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    388; 
King  v.  Gedney,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,795,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  443. 

26.  In  re  Aiken,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  107,  Mc- 
Arthur Pat.  Cas.  126;  In  re  Crooker,  6  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    3,414,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    134; 
Ex  p.  Spence,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,228. 

Mere  comments  by  the  commissioner  in  his 
decision  are  not  appealable.  In  re  Freeman, 
23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  226. 

27.  In   re   Conklin,    1    McArthur    (D.    C.) 
375;  In  re  Aiken,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  107,  Mc- 
Arthur  Pat.   Cas.   126;   Arnold   v.   Bishop,    1 
Fed.   Cas.  No.   553,  McArthur  Pat.   Cas.  36, 
Cranch   Pat.   Dec.   109;    Burlew  v.  O'Neil,  4 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    2,167,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas. 
168. 

New  matter  is  not  considered.  In  re  Jack- 
son, 13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,126,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  485;  In  re  Jewett,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,308,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  259;  Ex  p.  Sand- 
ers, 21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,292;  Sturtevant  v. 
Greenough,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,579. 

28.  Davis  v.  Garrett,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
9;  In  re  Frasch,  27  App.   Cas.    (D.  C.)    25. 
And  see  Jones  v.  Starr,  26  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
64. 

Extent  of  oral  argument. —  The  court  can- 
not control  the  action  of  the  commissioner  of 
patents  in  a  discretionary  matter,  such  as 
the  extent  of  oral  argument  to  be  permitted 
at  a  hearing  of  an  interference.  Sobey  v. 
Holsclaw,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  65. 

Leave  to  amend. —  Whether  leave  shall  be 
given  to  amend  a  preliminary  statement  is  a 
matter  that  rests  in  the  discretion  of  the 
commissioner  of  patents,  and  is  not  review- 
able  in  the  court  of  appeals,  save  possibly 
in  a  case  of  palpable  abuse  of  that  dis- 
cretion. Neth  v.  Ohmer,  27  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  319. 

29.  O'Connell    v.    Schmidt,    27    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    77. 

30.  Parkes     v.     Lewis,      28      App.      Cas. 

[V,  C,  9,  d] 


(D.  C.)  1.  And  see  Bechman  v.  Southgate, 
28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  405,  holding  that  ex- 
cept in  extreme  cases  this  court  will  not 
go  behind  the  declaration  of  interference  in 
order  to  determine  the  question  of  identity 
of  invention;  and  such  a  case  is  not  presented 
where  it  appears  that  the  assignee  and  em- 
ployer of  the  junior  and  unsuccessful  party, 
after  the  latter  saw  his  rival's  application 
and  drawings,  filed  the  junior  party's  appli- 
cation, with  specifications  reading  very  much 
like  those  of  the  senior  party. 

31.  Duryea  v.  Rice,  28  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
423. 

32.  Orcutt    v.    McDonald,    27    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)   228;  Hillard  v.  Brooks,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)   526;  Ostergreen  v.  Tripler,  17  App. 
Cas.   (D.  C.)   557;  Schupphaus  v.  Stevens,  17 
App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    548;    Latham  v.  Armat, 
17  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   345;  Newton  v.  Wood- 
ward,   17   App.    Cas.    (D.    C.)    34;    Westing- 
house  t\  Duncan,  2  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    131; 
Stone  v.  Pupin,  100  Off.  Gaz.  1113.     See  also- 
Potter   1?.   Mclntosh,    28   App.    Cas.    (D.   C.) 
510;   Kreag  v.  Geen,  28  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
437;  Sobey  v.  Holsclaw,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
65.     But   see   Burrows   v.   Wetherill,   4   Fed. 
Cas.    No.    2,208,    McArthur    Pat.    Cas.    315; 
Jones  v.  Wetherill,   13   Fed.   Cas.  No.  7,508, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  409;  Yearsley  v.  Brook- 
field,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,131,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  193. 

33.  Parkes  v.  Lewis,  28  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.) 
1;  Bourn  v.  Hill,  27  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   291; 
Fowler  v.  McBerty,  27  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)  41, 
46;  Ball  v.  Flora,  26  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   394; 
Flora  I?.  Powrie,  23  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)    195; 
Talbott    v.    Monell,    23    App.    Cas.     (D.    C.) 
108;    Cobb  v.   Goebel,  23   App.   Cas.  (D.   C.) 
75. 

Unanimity  in  the  patent  office  tribunals 
imposes  upon  the  appellant  in  this  court  the 
burden  of  showing  very  clearly  that  the  com- 
missioner erred  in  the  final  decision  appealed 
from.  In  re  Clunies,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
18;  Parkes  v.  Lewis,  28  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  1. 

34.  Orcutt    v.    McDonald,    27    App.    Cas.. 
(D.  C.)  228. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     899 


is  immaterial.35  The  court  has  no  power  to  send  the  case  back  to  take  further 
proofs.86 

f.  Time  For  Appeal.  Appeals  must  be  taken  from  the  patent  office  within 
one  year,37  or  within  a  shorter  period  fixed  in  the  decision.38  Notice  of  appeal  to 
the  court  of  appeals  from  decisions  of  the  commissioner  must  be  given  to  the 
commissioner  of  patents  within  forty  days  from  the  date  of  the  decision  exclusive 
of  Sundays  and  holidays.39  A  transcript  of  the  record  must  be  filed  in  the  court 
of  appeals  within  forty  days  thereafter.40 

10.  CAVEATS  —  a.  In  General.  A  caveat  is  simply  notice  that  the  one  filing  it 
claims  to  be  the  inventor  of  the  subject-matter  disclosed.41  It  entitles  him  to 
notice  from  the  patent  office  if  any  one  files  an  application  for  the  same  thing 
within  the  life  of  the  caveat  which  is  one  year,42  but  it  'does  not  entitle  him  to 
notice  of  applications  filed  previously  or  subsequently.43  Its  purpose  is  to  prevent 
the  issue  of  a  patent  to  another  while  the  caveator  is  perfecting  his  invention.44 
But  the  fact  that  a  patent  is  inadvertently  granted  while  a  caveat  is  pending  does 
not  of  itself  vacate  the  patent,  or  authorize  the  granting  of  a  patent  to  the  other 
party  unless  he  shows  priority  of  invention.45  The  caveat  is  not  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  the  invention  is  in  part  perfected ;  a  person  may  chose  to  file  a  caveat 
while  he  is  going  on  and  making  improvements  upon  an  invention  which  he  has 
already  completed  so  as  to  be  of  practical  utility.46 

b.  By  Whom  Filed.  A  caveat  can  be  filed  only  by  the  actual  inventor  but 
may  be  filed  by  a  foreigner  as  well  as  a  citizen  of  the  U  nited  States.47 


35.  In  re  Aiken,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  107,  Mc- 
Arthur  Pat.  Cas.  126;  In  re  Crooker,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,414,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  134. 

36.  Ex  p.  Sanders,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,292; 
Blackford  v.  Wilder,   104  Off.  Gaz.  580. 

37.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)   §  4894. 
Motion  for  rehearing  does  not  extend  time. 

Ross   v.   Loewer,   9   App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    563; 
Ex  p.  Linton,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,378. 

Appellant  entitled  to  time  allowed  by 
rules. —  An  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the 
commissioner  of  patents  will  not  be  dismissed 
because  the  appellant  has  availed  himself  of 
all  the  time  allowed  by  the  rules  for  taking 
and  perfecting  his  appeal,  although  by  so 
doing  he  necessarily  prevents  the  hearing  of 
the  appeal  until  after  the  summer  recess  of 
the  court.  Jones  v.  Starr,  26  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  64. 

Computation  of  time. —  Saturday  half  holi- 
days do  not  count  in  computing  time.  Ocum- 
paugh  v.  Norton,  114  Off.  Gaz.  545. 

38.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4904   [U.   S. 
Comp.    St.    (1901)    p.    33891;    Greenough   v. 
Clark,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,784,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  173;  Justice  v.  Jones,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,588,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  635. 

Power  to  limit  time. —  The  court  has  au- 
thority to  limit  the  time  for  appeals.  In  re 
Hien,  166  U.  S.  432,  17  S.  Ct.  624,  41  L.  ed. 
1066. 

39.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4912   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)  p.  3391];  Pract.  Rule  149; 
Ross   v.   Loewer,   9  App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    563; 
Hein   v.   Pungs,   9   App.    Cas.    (D.    C.)    492; 
In  re  Bryant,  9  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   447. 

40.  Court  of  Appeals,  rule  21. 

41.  U.  S.  Electric  Co.  v.  Jamaica,  etc.,  Co., 
61  Fed.  655;  Hoe  v.  Kahler,  12  Fed.  Ill,  20 
Blatchf.    430;    Heath    v.    Hildreth,    11    Fed. 
Cas. 'No.  6,309;  Ex  p.  Woodruff,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,989. 


In  Canada  the  law  is  substantially  the 
same  as  that  in  the  United  States.  Pat.  Act, 
35  Viet.  c.  26,  §  39. 

In  England  a  caveat  is  simply  opposition 
at  any  stage  to  the  grant  of  a  patent  to  an- 
other. In  re  Johnson,  13  Ch.  D.  398  note,  28 
Wkly.  Rep.  709  note;  In  re  Somerset,  13 
Ch.  D.  397,  42  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  635,  28  Wkly. 
Rep.  709.  It  entitles  the  caveator  to  notice. 
Reg.  v.  Cutler,  14  Q.  B.  372  note,  68  E.  C.  L. 
373,  3  C.  &  K.  215,  1  Starke  354,  2  E.  C.  L. 
138 ;  Matter  of  Fawcett,  2  De  G.  M.  &  G.  439, 
51  Eng.  Ch.  344,  42  Eng.  Reprint  942. 

42.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4902   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3388];  Allen  v.  Hunter, 
1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  225,  6  McLean  303;  Bell  v. 
Daniels,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,247,  1  Bond  212, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  372. 

Prior  caveat. —  One  who  has  filed  a  caveat 
cannot  be  prejudiced  by  the  omission  of  the 
commissioner  to  give  him  notice  of  the  appli- 
cation for  a  patent  by  one  who  had  filed  a 
prior  caveat.  Phelps  v.  Brown,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,072,  4  Blatchf.  362,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
479. 

43.  U.  S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4902    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3388]  ;  Johnson  v.  Onion, 
13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,401,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  170, 
3  Hughes  290. 

44.  Allen  v.  Hunter,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  225, 
6  McLean  303. 

45.  Cochrane  v.  Waterman,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,929,  Cranch  Pat.  Dec.   121,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  52. 

46.  The  invention  is  not  necessarily  im- 
perfect   when    caveat    is    filed. —  Johnson    v. 
Root,    13   Fed.   Cas.  No.   7,411,   1    Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  351;   Calhoun  v.  Hodgson,  70  Off.  Gaz. 
276. 

47.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.     (1878)     §    4902,    as 
amended  March  3,   1903,  32  U.  S.  St.  at  L. 
1227  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  Suppl.  (1905)  p.  666]. 

[V,  C,  10,  b] 


900     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


11.  SECRECY  OF  APPLICATIONS  AND  CAVEATS.    Applications  for  patents  and  caveats 
are  preserved  in  secrecy  by  the  patent  office  because  of  the  express  provisions  of 
the   federal  statutes  tf  that  an  inventor  cannot  be  compelled  to  disclose  a  secret 
invention  made  or  owned  by  him.49 

12.  RIGHT  TO  INSPECT  AND  OBTAIN  COPIES  OF  PATENT  OFFICE  RECORDS.     Any  one 
making  proper  application  therefor  and  paying  the  fees  provided  by  law  may 
obtain  copies  of  all  public  records  of  the  patent  office;50  but  they  cannot  obtain 
copies  of  pending  applications  to  which  they  are  not  parties  except  upon  a  proper 
showing  made  to  the  commissioner  of  the  right  to  and  necessity  for  the  copies  or 
upon  the  order  of  a  competent  court.51 

13.  COPIES  OF  RECORDS.     Certified  copies  of  records,  books,  papers,  or  drawings 
belonging  to  the  patent  office  are  received  as  evidence  in  all  cases  where  the  origi- 
nals could  be  evidence ; 52  and  certified  copies  of  the  specifications  and  drawings 
of  foreign  letters  patent  in  the  United  States  patent  office  constitute  prima  facie 
evidence  of  the  fact  of  the  granting  of  such  letters  patent  and  of  the  date  and 
contents  thereof.53 

14.  RULES  OF  PATENT  OFFICE.     The  rules  of  procedure  established  for  the  pat- 
ent office  have  the  force  of  law  where  not  inconsistent  with  law  and  are  binding 
upon  the  commissioner  as  well  as  upon  applicants  for  patents.54 

15.  CONCLUSIVENESS  AND  EFFECT  OF  PATENT  OFFICE  DECISIONS55 — a.  In  General. 
The  decision  of  the  commissioners  of  patents  in  the  allowance  and  issue  of  a  pat- 
ent creates  only  a  prima  facie  right,  and  is  subject  to  examination  by  the 
courts  ; M  but  the  commissioner  of  patents  must  abide  by  the  decision  of  his  prede- 


48.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1873)    §  4902   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3388];   U.   S.  Rev.  St. 
(1878)     §    4908    [U.    S.    Comp.    St.     (1901) 

p.  3390]. 

49.  Pract.  Rule  15. 

The  rule  of  secrecy  in  the  patent  office  has 
no  application  to  investigation  of  caveat  by 
courts.  Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Oshkosh  Match 
Works,  63  Fed.  984. 

In  Canada  all  papers  are  open  to  inspec- 
tion save  caveats.  Pat.  Act,  35  Viet.  c.  26, 
§  44. 

50.  U.  S.  v.  Butterworth  Patent  Com'r,  81 
Off.  Gaz.  505;  In  re  Drawbaugh,  66  Off.  Gaz. 
1451. 

A  rude  and  insulting  demand  is  not  a  legal 
demand.  Boyden  v.  Burke,  14  How.  (U.  S.) 
575,  14  L.  ed.  548. 

In  England  an  application  to  inspect  pro- 
visional specification  has  been  refused.  Tol- 
son's  Patent,  6  De  G.  M.  &  G.  422,  4  Wkly. 
Rep.  518,  55  Eng.  Ch.  329,  43  Eng.  Reprint 
1297. 

51.  U.  S.  v.  Patent  Com'r,  19  D.  C.  223; 
U.  S.  v.  Butterworth  Patent  Com'r,   81   Off. 
Gaz.  505 ;  U.  S.  v.  Patent  Com'r,  62  Off.  Gaz. 
1968;  U.  S.  v.  Patent  Com'r,  54  Off.  Gaz.  267; 
U.  S.  v.  Hall,  48  Off.  Gaz.  1263. 

52.  U.    S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §    892    [U.    S. 
Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  673];  Paine  v.  Trask,  56 
Fed.  231;   Toohey  v.  Harding,   1  Fed.   174,  4 
Hughes  253;  Johnson  v.  Beard,  13  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,371,  12  Ban.  &  A.  50,  8  Off.  Gaz.  435. 

A  certified  copy  of  the  patent  office  record 
of  an  assignment  is  accepted  in  place  of  the 
original  instrument.  Carpenter  v.  Eberhard 
Mfg.  Co.,  78  Fed.  127;  Standard  Elevator  Co. 
V.  Crane  Elevator  Co.,  76  Fed.  767,  22  C.  C.  A. 
549;  National  Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
American  Paper  Pail,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Fed.  488; 

[V,  C,  11] 


Dederick  v.  Whitman  Agricultural  Co.,  26 
Fed.  763:  Brooks  v.  Jenkins,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,953,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  41,  3  McLean  432; 
Lee  v.  Blandy,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,182,  1  Bond 
361,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  89;  Parker  v.  Haworth, 
18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,738,  4  McLean  370,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  725.  Contra,  see  National 
Cash  Register  Co.  v.  Navy  Cash-Register  Co., 
99  Fed.  89;  International"  Tooth-Crown  Co.  v. 
Bennett,  72  Fed.  169;  New  York  v.  American 
Cable  R.  Co.,  60  Fed.  1016,  9  C.  C.  A.  336; 
Paine  v.  Trask,  56  Fed.  231. 

In  Canada  the  law  is  like  that  of  the 
United  States.  Pat.  Act,  35  Viet.  c.  26,  §  2. 

53.  U.   S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   893    [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  673] ;  Schoerken  v.  Swift, 
etc.,  Co.,  7  Fed.  469,  19  Blatchf.  209. 

Certificate  by  acting  commissioner  is  suffi- 
cient. Woodworth  c.  Hall,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,016,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  495,  1  Woodb.  &  M. 
248. 

In  England  copy  of  foreign  patent  under 
seal  of  that  country  is  proved  without  proof 
of  official  character  of  signer.  In  re  Betts,  9 
Jur.  N.  S.  137,  7  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  577,  1 
Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  49,  1  New  Rep.  137,  11 
Wkly.  Rep.  221,  15  Eng.  Reprint  621. 

54.  U.   S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   483    [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  272];  Mell  v.  Midgley, 
31  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   534;  U.  S.  v.  Allen,  22 
App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)   56;   O'Hara  v.  Hawes,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,466. 

55.  On  application  for  extension  see  infra, 
VII,  B. 

56.  Reckendorfer  v.  Faber,  92  U.  S.  347,  23 
L.  ed.  719;  Hayes- Young  Tie  Plate  Co.  v.  St. 
Louis  Transit  Co.,  137  Fed.  80,  70  C.  C.  A.  1; 
Wilkins  Shoe-Button  Fastener  Co.  v.  Webb,  89 
Fed.  &S2;   Allen  v.  Hunter,   1   Fed.  Cas.  No. 
225,    6    McLean    303;    Brooks   v.    Jenkins,    4 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     901 


cessor,  granting  a  patent,  so  long  as  it  is  unreversed  by  a  competent  court.57 
Such  being  the  prima  facie  presumption  the  burden  of  proof  to  establish  a  con- 
trary conclusion  is  upon  the  opposite  party.58  If  the  proofs  do  not  overcome  this 
presumption,  and  the  device  is  of  such  a  character,  or  relates  to  such  special  and 
peculiar  subject-matters,  that  it  does  riot  come  within  the  range  of  common  expe- 
rience or  judicial  knowledge,  the  prima  facie  showing  must  stand.59  This  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  the  validity  of  a  patent  does  not,  however,  obtain  where 
the  records  and  papers  of  the  patent  office  show  conclusively  that  the  commis- 
sioner has  acted  without  authority  or  has  exceeded  it,60  or  where  his  decision  is 
impeached  for  fraud.61  It  cannot  be  shown,  however,  that  the  commissioner  who 
granted  the  patent  exceeded  or  irregularly  exercised  his  authority,  except  by  mat- 
ter apparent  on  the  face  of  the  patent.  The  patent  is  conclusively  valid  until  it 
is  successfully  impeached  in  a  direct  proceeding  properly  instituted  for  that  pur- 
pose.62 If  there  was  fraud  practised  in  obtaining  the  patent,  that  is  a  matter 
between  the  patent  office  and  the  patentee.  The  patent,  although  obtained  by 
fraud,  must  be  respected  and  enforced  until  reversed  or  annulled  by  some  pro- 
ceedings directly  for  that  purpose.  It  is  not  exposed  to  the  attacks  of  strangers 
or  third  persons  for  such  reason.63 

b.  As  to  Application  and  Procedure  in  Obtaining  Patent.  In  the  absence  of 
fraud,  the  issue  of  a  patent  is  conclusive  evidence  that  the  statutory  requirements 
as  to  the  application  and  procedure  in  the  patent  office  have  been  complied  with.64 


Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,953,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  41,  3 
McLean  432;  Congress  Rubber  Co.  v.  Amer- 
ican Elastic  Cloth  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,099a; 
Potter  v.  Holland,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,330,  4 
Blatchf.  238,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  382;  Sands  v. 
Wardwell,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,306,  3  Cliff. 
277. 

No  court  is  bound  by  the  decision  of  the 
patent  office  granting  a  patent  when  immedi- 
ate steps  are  taken  to  test  its  validity  in  an 
action  instituted  for  that  purpose.  Minne- 
apolis Harvester  Works  v.  McCormick  Har- 
vesting-Mach.  Co.,  28  Fed.  565. 

Conclusive  as  to  state  court. — A  patent  con- 
ferred upon  an  inventor  is  conclusive  of  its 
own  validity,  and  a  state  court  cannot  go 
behind  it.  Cowan  v.  Mitchell,  11  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  87. 

Due  heed  and  consideration  must  always  be 
given  by  the  court  or  jury,  as  the  case  may 
be,  to  this  presumption,  but  the  real  question 
in  all  cases  is  whether  or  not  the  evidence  in 
the  case  is  or  is  not  sufficient  to  overcome  the 
prima  facie  presumption  which  the  patent  af- 
fords. Los  Angeles  Art  Organ  Co.  v.  ^Eolian 
Co.,  143  Fed.  880,  75  C.  C.  A.  88. 

Joint  patent  prima  facie  evidence  that  all 
patentees  participated  in  invention. —  Hotch- 
kiss  v.  Greenwood,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,718,  4 
McLean  456,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  730  [affirmed 
in  11  How.  248,  13  L.  ed.  683]. 

57.  Matter  of  Hoevler,'21  D.  C.  107;  Ex  p. 
Larowe,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,093;  Ex  p.  Simp- 
son, 22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,878. 

58.  Wilkins    Shoe-Button    Fastener    Co.   v. 
Webb,   89   Fed.   982;    Sands   v.   Wardwell,   21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   12,306,  3  Cliff.  277.     And  see 
supra,  V,  C,  4,  c;  IV,  A,  10,  a;  IV,  C,  3. 

59.  Packard   v.   Lacing-Stud   Co.,   70    Fed. 
66,  16  C.  G.  A.  639,  holding  that  the  fact  that 
no  machine  has  been  constructed  or  put  into 
practical  operation  under  a  patent  is  not  of 
itself  sufficient  to  show  the  patent  inopera- 


tive, or  to  overcome  the  presumption  of  its 
validity  arising  from  the  fact  of  issuance. 

60.  Mahn  v.   Harwood,   112   U.   S.  354,   5 
S.  Ct.  174,  6  S.  Ct.  451,  28  L.  ed.  665;  Allen 
v.  Blunt,   1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  216,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.   288,  3   Story   742;    Whitely  v.   Swayne, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,568,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  117 
[affirmed  in  7  Wall.  685,  19  L.  ed.  199]. 

The  commissioner  of  patents  is  an  officer 
of  limited  authority,  whose  jurisdiction  is 
restricted  to  the  particular  cases  mentioned 
in  the  statute;  and  therefore,  whenever  it  is 
apparent  upon  inspection  of  the  patents  that 
he  has  acted  without  authority,  or  has  ex- 
ceeded it,  his  judgment  must  necessarily  be 
regarded  as  invalid.  Giant  Powder  Co.  v. 
California  Vigorit  Powder  Co.,  4  Fed.  720,  6 
Sawy.  508. 

61.  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  216,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  288,  3  Story  742. 

Fraud  must  be  shown  prima  facie. —  Where 
fraud  is  charged  upon  a  party  in  respect  to 
his  patent,  it  must  be  made  out  at  least  prima, 
facie.  Goodyear  v.  Day,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,567. 

62.  Blackford    v.    Wilder,    28    App.    Cas. 
(D.    C.)     535;    Dorsey    Harvester    Revolving 
Rake  Co.  v.  Marsh,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,014,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  387,  9  Phila.   (Pa.)   395. 

63.  Crompton    v.    Belknap    Mills,    30    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  18,285,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536. 

64.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stimpson, 
14  Pet.   (U.  S.)    448,  10  L.  ed.  535;  Calcula- 
graph  Co.  v.  WTilson,  132  Fed.  20  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in   144  Fed.   91,   75   C.  C.  A. 
249] ;  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Safety  Nitro  Pow- 
der Co.,  19  Fed.  509;  Hoe  v.  Cottrell,  1  Fed. 
597,  17  Blatchf.  546;  McMillan  v.  Barclay,  16 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,902,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189,  4 
Brewst.  (Pa.)  275,  3  Pittsb.  (Pa.)  377 ;  Tarr  v. 
Folsom,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,756,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
24,   Holmes    312,   5   Off.   Gaz.    92.      Compare 
Fassett  v.  Ewart  Mfg.  Co.,  58  Fed.  360  [«/- 

[V,  C,  15,  b] 


902     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


e.  As  to  Patentability.  The  decision  of  the  patent  office,  upon  an  application 
for  a  patent,  is  never  final  upon  the  question  of  the  novelty  and  utility  of  an  inven- 
tion. Upon  reason  and  authority,  the  new  patent  granted  after  a  hearing  merely 
makes  out  a  prima  facie  case  for  the  successful  applicant,65  and  the  original  pre- 
sumptions of  novelty  and  utility  arising  from  the  grant  of  a  patent  are  strength- 
ened by  its  extension.66  Even  where  an  interference  is  claimed,  and  as  against 
the  parties  to  the  hearing,  the  commissioner's  decision  is  not  conclusive.67  But 
while  the  decision  of  the  commissioner  of  patents  is  not  resjudicata  on  the  ques- 
tion of  novelty,  it  is  entitled  to  the  highest  respect,68  and  where  patentable  nov- 
elty has  been  denied  by  all  the  tribunals  of  the  patent  office,  it  will  require  a  very 
clear  case  to  obtain  a  reversal.69  On  the  question  of  usefulness  and  cost  of  an 
invention, "it  has  been  held  that  the  testimony  of  machinists  and  manufacturers 
having  practical  knowledge  of  the  subject-matter  is  of  greater  weight  than  the 
opinion  of  the  commissioner  of  patents.70 

d.  As  to  Originality  and  Priority.  The  issuance  of  a  patent  establishes  prima 
facie  the  patentee's  title  as  the  original  and  first  inventor.71  So  a  previous  deci- 


firmed  in  62  Fed.  404,  10  C.  C.  A.  441],  hold- 
ing that  the  action  of  the  patent  office  in  al- 
lowing a  separation  of  claims  into  divisional 
applications  is  not  conclusive,  and  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  severance  was  proper  and 
valid  may  be  passed  upon  by  the  courts.  See 
also  McKay  v.  Dibert,  5  Fed.  587. 

As  to  giving  notice  and  paying  fees. —  A 
patent  once  granted  cannot  be  subsequently 
impeached  by  evidence  tending  to  show  a 
want  of  compliance  with  the  law  as  to  giving 
notice,  or  paying  fees,  etc.  Lamprey  Boiler 
Furnace  Mouth  Protector  Co.  v.  Economy 
Feed  Water  Heater  Co.,  62  Fed.  590  [affirmed 
in  65  Fed.  1000,  13  C.  C.  A.  271];  Tarr  v. 
Folsom,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,756,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
24,  Holmes  312,  5  Off.  Gaz.  92. 

As  to  taking  of  oaths. —  Recitals  in  letters 
patent  in  the  absence  of  fraud  are  conclusive 
evidence  that  the  necessary  oaths  were  taken 
before  the  patent  was  granted.  Seymour  v. 
Osborne,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.)  516,  20  L.  ed.  33; 
Hancock  Inspirator  Co.  v.  Jenks,  21  Fed.  911; 
De  Florez  v.  Raynolds,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,742, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  292,  14  Blatchf.  505.  The  fact 
that  a  blank  form  of  oath  not  executed  is 
found  among  the  papers  cannot  overcome  the 
direct  recital  of  the  letters  patent  that  the 
oath  was  taken,  or  the  presumption  that  the 
requirements  of  the  law  were  complied  with 
in  issuing  the  patent.  Crompton  v.  Belknap 
Mills,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,285,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  536. 

As  to  signatures. —  The  presumption  is  that 
a  patent  is  signed  and  countersigned  rightly. 
Smith  v.  Mercer,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  529. 

65.  Alabama. —  Stephenson  v.  Allison,  123 
Ala.  439,  26  So.  290. 

Ohio.—  Clark  v.  Bentel,  9  Ohio  Dec.  (Re- 
print) 289,  12  Cine.  L.  Bui.  53. 

South  Carolina. —  Wright  v.  Wilson,  11 
Rich.  144. 

Tennessee. —  Green  v.  Stuart,  7  Baxt.  418. 

United  States. —  Boyd  v.  Janesville  Hay- 
Tool  Co.,  158  U.  S.  260,  15  S.  Ct.  837,  39 
L.ed.  973;  National  Mach.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  72  Fed.  185  (holding  that  the  fact 
that  a  party  to  an  interference  proceeding 
permits  the  decision  to  go  against  him  by  de- 

[V,  C,  15,  c] 


fault  does  not  make  such  decision  conclusive 
against  him  upon  the  question  of  the  patent- 
ability of  the  machine  in  a  subsequent  suit 
against  him  for  infringement)  ;  Ney  v.  Ney 
Mfg.  Co.,  69  Fed.  405,  16  C.  C.  A.  293;  Frank- 
fort Whisky  Process  Co.  v.  Mill  Creek  Dis- 
tilling Co.,  37  Fed.  533;  Shaver  v.  Skinner 
Mfg.  Co.,  30  Fed.  68;  American  Nicholson 
Pavement  Co.  v.  Elizabeth,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
312,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189;  Goodyear  v.  Day, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,566;  Serrell  v.  Collins,  21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,672,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  289; 
Spaulding  v.  Tucker,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,220, 
Deady  649  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  13 
Wall.  453,  20  L.  ed.  515] ;  Union  Paper-Bag 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Crane,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,388, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  494,  Holmes  429,  6  Off.  Gaz. 
801. 

See  38  Cent.  Dig.  tit.  "  Patents,"  §  164. 

The  issuance  of  patents  on  two  applica- 
tions which  were  pending  at  the  same  time, 
and  relate  to  the  same  subject-matter,  is  in 
effect  an  adjudication  by  the  patent  office  that 
there  is  a  substantial  difference  betwen  the 
inventions,  and  raises  a  presumption  that  the 
device  of  the  later  patent  is  not  an  infringe- 
ment of  the  earlier  one.  Boyd  v.  Janesville 
Hay-Tool  Co.,  158  U.  S.  260,  15  S.  Ct.  837, 
39  L.  ed.  973. 

66.  Cook  f.  Ernest,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,155, 

5  Fish.   Pat.   Cas.  396,   1   Woods   195,  2  Off. 
Gaz.  89 ;  Evarts  v.  Ford,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,574. 

6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  587,  5  Off.  Gaz.  58. 

67.  Union  Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  f.  Crane, 
24  Fed.   Cas.   No.    14,388,   1    Ban.  &  A.  494, 
Holmes  429,  6  Off.  Gaz.  801. 

68.  Boyden   Power-Brake    Co.    v.   Westing- 
house  Air-Brake  Co.,  70  Fed.  816,  17  C.  C.  A. 
430;  Cook  v.  Ernest,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,155,  5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  396,  1  Woods  195,  2  Off.  Gaz. 
89. 

69.  In  re  Beswick,  16  App.  Cas.    (D.  0.) 
345;  In  re  Smith,  14  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)    181; 
In  re  Barratt,  11  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)    177. 

70.  Ex  p.  Arthur,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  563a. 

71.  Clark  v.  Bentel,  9  Ohio  Dec.   (Reprint) 
289,   12   Cine.  L.  Bui.  53;   Maurice  v.  Devol, 
23  W.  Va.  247;   Ashcroft  v.  Boston,  ete.,  R. 
Co.,  97   U.  S.    189,  24  L.  ed.  982;    Smith  v. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     903 


sion  by  the  commissioner  of  patents  in  interference  proceedings  upon  the  question 
of  fact  as  to  priority  of  invention  must  be  accepted  as  controlling,  unless  the  con- 
trary is  established  by  testimony  which,  in  character  and  amount,  carries  thorough 
conviction.72  Much  more  is  this  effect  to  be  given  to  the  decision  of  the  commis- 
sioner when  it  has  been  affirmed  by  the  court  of  appeals  of  the  District  of 
Columbia.73  While  the  decision  of  the  patent  office  on  this  question  is  never 
final,74  even  as  against  the  parties  to  an  interference  proceeding,75  it  is  neverthe- 
less entitled  to  sufficient  weight  in  an  infringement  suit  to  cast  the  burden  of 
proof  on  the  party  against  whom  it  was  rendered.76  When  the  prima  facie 
force  of  a  patent  as  to  priority  of '  invention  on  the  part  of  the  patentee  has 
been  once  destroyed  by  evidence  of  prior  invention  on  the  part  of  another, 
it  cannot  be  restored  by  the  patent  itself,  but  only  by  specific  testimony  from 
witnesses.77 

e.  As  to  Abandonment.  The  action  of  the  commissioner  of  patents  in  grant- 
ing letters  patent  does  not  conclude  the  question  whether  there  has  been  an 
abandonment.78 

16.  REMEDY  IN  EQUITY  FOR  REFUSAL  OF  PATENT  —  a.  In  General.  Where  there 
is  an  adverse  decision  by  the  court  of  appeals  of  the  District  of  Columbia  upon 
appeal  from  the  commissioner  in  an  application  for  patent  or  in  an  interference, 
the  defeated  party  may  file  a  bill  in  equity  and  retry  the  question.79  The  proceed- 


Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.,  93  U.  S.  486, 
23  L.  ed.  952;  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Hale,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Oneonta,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  129  Fed.  59«; 
Carnegie  Steel  Co.  v.  Cambria  Iron  Co.,  89 
Fed.  721  [affirmed  in  185  U.  S.  403,  22 
S.  Ct.  698,  46  L.  ed.  968] ;  Stonemetz  Printers' 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Brown  Folding-Mach.  Co.,  57 
Fed.  601;  Pacific  Cable  R.  Co.  v.  Butte  City 
St.  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  863  [affirmed  in  60  Fed. 
90,  8  C.  C.  A.  484];  Aiken  v.  Dolan,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  110,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  197;  Goodyear 
Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Gardiner,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,591,  3  Cliff.  408,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
224;  Haskell  v.  Shoe  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,194,  3  Ban.  &  A.  553,  15  Off.  Gaz. 
509;  Johnson  v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,409, 
2  Cliff.  108,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  291;  Sands  v. 
Wardwell,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,306,  3  Cliff. 
277 ;  Spear  v.  Belson,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,223, 
McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  699  (holding  that  the 
issuance  of  a  patent  establishes  prima  facie 
the  patentee's  title  as  an  original  inventor,- 
and  he  must  be  considered  as  such  even  in  a 
subsequent  interference  proceeding  in  which 
prior  invention  by  another  is  shown,  unless 
there  is  proof  either  positive  or  presumptive 
that  he  had  knowledge  thereof)  ;  Tucker  v. 
Tucker  Mfg.  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,227,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  401,  4  Cliff.  397,  10  Off.  Gaz.  464. 

72.  Morgan  v.  Daniels,  153  U.  S.  120,  14 
S.  Ct.  772,  38  L.  ed.  657  [reversing  42  Fed. 
451];  John  R.  Williams  Co.  v.  Miller,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  107  Fed.  290;  Standard  Cartridge 
Co.  v.  Peters  Cartridge  Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23 
C.  C.  A.  367  [affirming  69  Fed.  408] ;  Ecau- 
bert  v.  Appleton,  67  Fed.  917,  15  C.  C.  A.  73. 

The  evidence  must  establish  clearly  the 
priority  of  a  completed  and  useful  machine 
over  that  of  the  patentee,  or  it  is  unavailing. 
To  doubt  upon  this  point  is  to  resolve  it  in 
the  negative.  Parham  v.  American  Button- 
hole, etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,713, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  468. 


Mere  suggestion  of  mistake  insufficient.— 
The  decision  of  the  commissioner  of  patents 
is  not  final  on  the  question  of  the  priority  of 
invention,  but  the  successful  applicant  will 
not  be  enjoined  from  receiving  his  patent 
upon  the  mere  suggestion  that  the  commis- 
sioner was  mistaken.  Whipple  v.  Miner,  15 
Fed.  117. 

73.  R.  Thomas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Electric  Porce- 
lain, etc.,  Co.,  Ill  Fed.  923. 

74.  Hubel    v.    Tucker,    24    Fed.    701,    23 
Blatchf.  297 ;  Gloucester  Isinglass,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Brooks,   19-  Fed.   426;   Whipple  v.  Miner,    15 
Fed.  117;  Goodyear  v.  Day,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,566;    Perry   v.   Starrett,    19    Fed.   Cas.   No. 
11,012,  3  Ban.   &  A.   485,   14  Off.  Gaz.   599; 
Union  Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  f.  Crane,  24  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  14,388,  1  Ban.  &  A.  494,  Holmes  429, 
6  Off.  Gaz.  801. 

75.  Union  Paper-Bag  Mach.  Oo.  v.  Crane, 
24  Fed.   Cas.   No.   14,388,    1    Ban.  &  A.   494, 
Holmes  429,  6  Off.  Gaz.  801.     But  see  Shuter 
v.  Davis,  16  Fed.  564, 

76.  Smith   v.    Goodyear    Dental   Vulcanite 
Co.,  93  U.  S.  486,  23  L.  ed.  952;  Stonemetz 
Printers'  Mach.  Co.  v.  Brown  Folding-Mach. 
Co.,  57  Fed.  601   [affirmed  in  58  Fed.  571,  7 
C.  C.  A.  374] ;   Gloucester  Isinglass,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Brooks,   19   Fed.  426;    Wire   Book  Sewing 
Mach.  Co.  I?.  Stevenson,  11  Fed.  155. 

77.  Barstow  v.  Swan,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,065. 

78.  Woodbury  Patent  Planing  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Keith,   101   U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed.   939;   U.  S. 
Rifle,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Whitney  Arms  Co.,  28  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,793,  2  Ban.  &  A.  493,  14  Blatchf. 
94,  11  Off.  Gaz.  373  [affirmed  in  118  U.  S.  22, 
6  S.  Ct.  950,  30  L.  ed.  53]. 

79.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4915   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3392];   Jones  v.  Starr, 
26  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   64;  McKnight  v.  Metal 
Volatilization  Co.,  128  Fed.  51. 

Conditions  precedent. —  Right  of  appeal 
must  be  exhausted.  Kirk  v.  Patent  Com'r, 
5  Mackey  (D.  C.)  229. 

[V,  C,  16,  a] 


904     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


ing  is  original  in  its  nature  and  not  appellate,80  and  new  evidence  may  be  pre- 
sented.81 In  interference  proceedings,  whether  a  party  not  involved  in  the  suit 
was  the  first  inventor  is  not  in  issue.82  The  complainant  is  not  entitled  to  a  decree  as 
a  matter  of  right  but  must  establish  it.82*  Where  there  is  no  interfering  claimant 
a  copy  of  the  bill  must  be  served  upon  the  commissioner  of  patents,  and  in  such 
case  all  costs  and  expenses  of  the  proceedings  must  be  paid  by  the  complainant 
whether  the  decision  is  in  his  favor  or  not.83  The  court  has  no  power  to  enjoin 
the  commissioner  from  issuing  a  patent  pending  suit.84  A  judgment  of  the  court 
that  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  a  patent  will  authorize  the  commissioner  to  issue.85 

b.  Time  and  Place  of  Suit.  The  suit  mus't  be  brought  within  one  year,86  and 
must  be  brought  in  the  district  in  which  defendant  is  an  inhabitant  or  may  be 
found.87  The  commissioner  of  patents  is  a  resident  of  the  District  of  Columbia 
and  the  suit  must  be  brought  there  against  him  where  there  is  no  interfering 
party,88  unless  he  consents  to  be  sued  in  another  district.89 

e.  Burden  of  Proof.  In  a  suit  in  equity  to  obtain  a  patent,  the  burden  is 
upon  the  complainant  to  prove  his  right  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.90 

VI.  REQUISITES  AND  VALIDITY  OF  LETTERS  PATENT.91 

A.  Form  and  Contents  —  1.  As  AN  INSTRUMENT.  A  patent  is  an  instrument 
issued  in  the  name  of  the  United  States  of  America,  under  the  seal  of  the  patent 
office,  signed  by  the  commissioner  of  patents,  containing  a  short  title  or  descrip- 
tion of  the  invention  or  discovery  indicating  its  nature  and  design,  and  a  grant  to 
the  patentee,  his  heirs  or  assigns,  for  the  term  of  seventeen  years  of  the  exclusive 
right  to  make,  use,  and  vend  the  invention  or  discovery  throughout  the  United 
States  and  the  territories  thereof,  and  must  refer  to  the  specification  for  the  par- 
ticulars thereof.92  So,  by  the  provisions  of  the  statute,  it  is  necessary  that  a 


80.  Dover    v.    Greenwood,    154    Fed.    854; 
Minneapolis  Harvester  Works  v.  McCormick 
Harvesting-Mach.  Co.,  28  Fed.  565;  Butler  v. 
Shaw,  21  Fed.  321;  New  York  Belting,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Sibley,  15  Fed.  386;  Whipple  v.  Miner, 
15  Fed.  117;  In  re  Squire,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,269,  3  Ban.  &  A.  133,  12  Off.  Gaz.  1025. 

Claims  considered. —  Complainant  is  con- 
fined to  claims  passed  on  by  patent  office. 
Durham  v.  Seymour,  6  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  78; 
Wheaton  v.  Kendall,  85  Fed.  666. 

81.  Durham     v.     Seymour,     6     App.     Cas. 
(D.  C.)   78;  Christie  v.  Seybold,  55  Fed.  69, 
5  C.  C.  A.  33 ;  In  re  Squire,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,269,  3  Ban.  &  A.  133,  12  Off.  Gaz.  1025. 

82.  Christie    v.    Seybold,    55    Fed.    69,    5 
C.  C.  A.  33. 

Questions  of  fact. —  Where  the  question 
which  of  two  applicants  for  a  patent  for  the 
same  invention  was  the  true  inventor  depends 
on  questions  of  fact,  the  court,  in  an  action 
brought  under  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4915 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3392],  by  the 
unsuccessful  applicant  to  compel  an  issuance 
of  the  patent  to  him,  must  be  very  clearly 
satisfied  that  the  decision  of  the  patent  office 
tribunals  between  the  two  was  erroneous  be- 
fore it  will  be  justified  in  reversing  the  same. 
Gillette  v.  Sendelbach,  146  Fed.  758,  77 
C.  C.  A.  55. 

82a.  Davis  v.  Garrett,  152  Fed.  723. 

83.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4915   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3392]. 

Expenses  are  paid  by  complainant  only 
where  there  is  no  opposing  party  save  the 
commissioner.  Butler  v.  Shaw,  21  Fed.  321. 

Parties. —  In    interference    cases    the    com- 

[V,  C,  16,  a] 


missioner  is  not  a  necessary  party.  Graham 
17.  Teter,  25  Fed.  555.  The  secretary  of  the 
interior  is  not  a  proper  party.  Kirk  v.  Pat- 
ent Com'r,  5  Mackey  (D.  C.)  229. 

84.  Illingworth    v.    Atha,    42     Fed.     141; 
Whipple  v.  Miner,  15  Fed.  117. 

85.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4915    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3392]. 

In  an  interference  where  the  issue  is  not 
patentable  there  can  be  no  judgment.  Hill 
v.  Wooster,  132  U.  S.  693,  10  S.  Ct.  228,  33 
L.  ed.  502;  Leslie  v.  Tracy,  100  Fed.  475. 

86.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)  §  4894. 

The  statute  relating  to  delay  in  prosecut- 
ing applications  applies  to  bill  in  equity. 
Gandy  v.  Marble,  122  U.  S.  432,  7  S.  Ct.  1290, 
30  L.  ed.  1223. 

87.  Gandy  v.  Marble,  122  U.  S.  432,  7  S.  Ct. 
1290,  30  L.  ed.  1223;  Bernardin  v.  Northall, 
77    Fed.   849;    Vermont   Farm  Mach.   Co.   v. 
Marble,  20  Fed.  117. 

88.  Butterworth  v.  Hill,  114  U.  S.   128,  5 
S.  Ct.  796,  29  L.  ed.  119. 

89.  Vermont   Farm  Mach.    Co.   v.   Marble, 
20  Fed.  117. 

90.  Durham     v.     Seymour,     6     App.     Cas. 
(D.   C.)    78;    Morgan  v.  Daniels,    153   U.   S. 
120,  14  S.  Ct.  772,  38  L.  ed.  657    [reversing 
42    Fed.    451];    Standard    Cartridge    Co.    v. 
Peters  Cartridge  Co.,  77  Fed.  630,  23  C.  C.  A. 
367   [affirming  69  Fed.  408]. 

91.  Decisions  of  United  States   courts  as 
to  validity  as  precedents  for  other  courts  see 
COURTS,  11  Cyc.  752. 

Validity  of  agreement  not  to  contest  patent 
see  CONTRACTS,  9  Cyc.  515. 

92.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.     (1878)     §    4883,    as 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     905 


copy  of  the  specification  and  drawings  be  annexed  to   the  patent  and  form  a 
part  thereof.93 

2.  RECORD.     The  patent  together  with  the  specification  must  be  recorded  in  the 
patent  office  in  books  kept  for  that  purpose.94 

3.  DATE  OF  ISSUE.     Every  patent  shall  issue  within  three  months  from  date  of 
payment  of  final  fee,  which  fee  must  be  paid  within  six  months  from  date  of 
allowance  and  notice  to  applicant  or  to  his  agent.95     A  patent  cannot  be  antedated.96 

B.  Validity —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  Where  the  statutory  requirements  in  the  issue 
of  the  patent  have  not  been  complied  with  the  patent  is  invalid  and  this  may  be 
shown  at  any  time,97  although  as  a  general  rule  a  patent  is  not  subject  to  collateral 
attack  for  defects  not  appearing  on  the  face  of  the  patent.98  As  has  already 


amended  April  11,  1902,  32  U.  S.  St.  at  L. 
95  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  Suppl.  (1905)  p.  662]; 
U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4884  [U.  S.  Comp. 
St.  (1901)  p.  3381].  Prior  to  the  amendment 
of  April  11,  1902,  patents  had  to  be  signed 
by  the  secretary  of  the  interior  or  an  assist- 
ant secretary  and  had  to  be  countersigned 
by  the  commissioner  of  patents,  and  a  failure 
to  comply  with  the  statutory  provisions,  such 
as  the  omission  of  the  signature  of  the  sec- 
retary of  the  interior,  is  fatal  to  the  validity 
of  the  patent.  Marsh  v.  Nichols,  128  U.  S. 
605,  9  S.  Ct.  168,  32  L.  ed.  538. 

The  acting  commissioner  may  sign  patents. 
Smith  v.  Mercer,  22  Fed.  Gas.  No.  13,078,  5 
?a.  L.  J.  529;  Woodworth  v.  Hall,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  18,016,  2  Robb  Pat.  Gas.  495,  1 
Woodb.  &  M.  248. 

In  Canada  the  law  is  like  that  in  the  United 
States  except  that  the  time  is  six,  twelve,  or 
eighteen  years  as  elected.  Pat.  Act,  35  Viet. 
c.  25,  §  10. 

93.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4884   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3381]. 

Drawing  is  part  of  patent.  Poupard  v. 
Fardell,  18  Wkly.  Rep.  127 ;  Reg.  v.  La  Force, 
4  Can.  Exch.  14. 

The  drawings  of  a  patent  are  not  required 
to  be  working  plans,  but  are  merely  illustra- 
tive, to  be  read  in  connection  with  the  specifi- 
cation and  claims,  and  a  patented  device  will 
not  be  held  inoperative  merely  because  of  im- 
perfections in  the  drawing  in  respect  to  the 
dimensions  or  relative  position  of  parts  of 
the  mechanism.  Wold  v.  Thayer,  148  Fed. 
227,  78  C.  C.  A.  350  [affirmed  in  142  Fed. 
776]. 

94.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4883;  Wyeth 
v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,107,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  23,  1  Story  273. 

English  practice. —  Patent  must  be  en- 
rolled by  patentee  within  the  time  fixed  and 
cannot  be  kept  secret.  In  re  Brough,  7  Beav. 
104,  29  Eng.  Ch.  104,  49  Eng.  Reprint  1002; 
Ex  p.  Beck,  1  Bro.  Ch.  578,  28  Eng.  Reprint 
1308;  Ex  p.  Hoops,  6  Ves.  599,  31  Eng.  Re- 
print 1215.  Master  of  rolls  can  correct  only 
clerical  errors.  In  re  Dismore,  18  Beav.  538, 
52  Eng.  Reprint  211;  In  re  Sharp,  3  Beav. 
245,  10  L.  J.  Ch.  86,  43  Eng.  Ch.  245,  49 
Eng.  Reprint  96;  In  re  Redmund,  6  L.  J. 
Ch.  0.  S.  183,  5  Russ.  44,  5  Eng.  Ch.  44,  38 
Eng.  Reprint  943. 

95.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  §  4885  as  amended  May 
23,    1908,  Public  No.    132    [U.   S.   Comp.    St. 


(1901)  p.  3382].  Where  patentee  refuses  to 
accept  patent  because  of  error  therein  and  it 
is  canceled  and  an  amended  patent  issued,  it 
dates  from  amendment.  Railway  Register 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  North  Hudson  County  R.  Co.,  23 
led.  593. 

Reallowance  and  issuance  of  patent  more 
than  six  months  after  the  first  allowance  does 
not  invalidate  it.  Western  Electric  Co.  v. 
North  Electric  Co.,  135  Fed.  79,  67  C.  C.  A. 
553. 

English  practice. —  Patent  is  effective  when 
seal  applied  and  before  enrolment.  Devon- 
shire v.  Neill,  L.  R.  2  Ir.  132,  146;  Russell  t>. 
Ledsam,  9  Jur.  557,  14  L.  J.  Exch.  353,  14 
M.  &  W.  574  {.affirmed  in  16  L.  J.  Exch.  145, 
16  M.  &  W.  633  (affirmed  in  1  H.  L.  Cas. 
687,  9  Eng.  R/eprint  931)].  Patent  not  given 
date  of  foreign  application  under  interna- 
tional convention  unless  requested  within 
seven  months.  Acetylene  Illuminating  Co.  v. 
United  Alkali  Co.,  [1902]  1  Ch.  494,  71  L.  J. 
Ch.  301,  50  Wkly.  Rep.  361. 

96.  Marsh    v.    Nichols,    128    U.    S.    605,    9 
S.  Ct.  168,  32  L.  ed.  538;  Gramme  Electrical 
Co.    v.   Arnoux,    etc.,    Electric    Co.,    17    Fed. 
838,  21  Blatchf.  450. 

97.  Kennedy  v.  Hazelton,  128  U.  S.  667,  9 
S.  Ct.  202.  32  L.  ed.  576;  Marsh  v.  Nichols, 
128  U.  8.  605,  9  S.  Ct.  168,  32  L.  ed.  538; 
Eagleton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  West  Bradley,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,   Ill  U.  S.  490,  4  S.   Ct.  593,  28  L.  ed. 
493;  Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Pet.   (U.  S.)   218, 
8  L.  ed.  376;   Moffitt  i:  Gaar,   17   Fed.  Cas. 
No.    9,690,    1    Bond    315,    1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas. 
610.     See  supra,  I,  A,  4.     Clerical  error  by 
patent   office   will   not   invalidate.     Deere   v. 
Arnold,  95  Fed.  169,  92  Fed.  186. 

Compliance  with  prerequisites  need  not  be 
recited.  Gear  v.  Grosvenor,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,291,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  314,  Holmes  215,  3 
Off.  Gaz.  380. 

98.  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.   (U.  S.) 
516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Eureka  Clothes  Wringing 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Bailey  Washing,  etc.,  Mach.  Co., 
11  Wall.   (U.  S.)   488,  20  L.  ed.  209;  Provi- 
dence Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
788,  19  L.  ed.  566;  Railway  Register  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  North  Hudson  County  R.  Co.,  23  Fed.  593 ; 
Hoe  v.  Cottrell,  1  Fed.  597,  17  Blatchf.  546; 
American    Wood-Paper    Co.    v.    Glens    Falls 
Paper  Co.,   1    Fed.   Cas.  No.   321,  8   Blatchf. 
513,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  324;   Birdsall  v.  Mc- 
Donald, 3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,434,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
165,  6  Off.  Gaz.  682;   Crompton  v.  Belknap 

[VI,  B,  1] 


906     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


been  shown  in  previous  chapters,  it  is  invalid  if  an}7  of  the  statutory  bars  to  its 
grant  existed.99 

2.  SUFFICIENCY  OF  DESCRIPTION.     A  patent  is  invalid  if  it  does  not  disclose  the 
invention  with  such  clearness  as  to  enable  one  skilled  in  the  art  to  make  and 
use  it.1 

3.  NAME  OF  PATENTEE.     Clerical  errors  in  the  name  of  the  patentee  will  not 
render  the  patent  void,  provided  the  patent  contains  a  description  of  him  by  which 
he  can  be  identified.2 

4.  DECEPTIVE  PATENT  —  a.  In  General.     If  there  be  a  false  suggestion  of  a 
material  fact  set  forth  in  the  specification,  the  patent  is  invalid.3     Inaccuracies  in 


Mills,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,406,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Gas. 
536 ;  Doughty  v.  West,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,028, 
6  Blatchf .  429,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  580 ;  Gear  v. 
Grosvenor,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,291,  6  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  314,  Holmes  215,  3  Off.  Gaz.  380; 
Tilghman  v.  Mitchell,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,042, 
9  Blatchf.  18,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  615  [.reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  19  Wall.  287,  22  L.  ed. 
1251.  See  infra,  VI,  E.  See  also  supra,  V, 
C,  15. 

99.  See  supra,  II;  III. 

Irregular  grant  of  a  subsequent  patent  for 
the  same  thing  will  not  invalidate  a  patent. 
Jones  v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,495,  3 
Cliff.  563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3  Off.  Gaz. 
630  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  91  U.  S. 
171,  23  L.  ed.  275]. 

In  Canada  a  patent  is  void  if  not  manu- 
factured in  Canada  within  two  years  and  if 
importations  are  allowed  after  one  year.  St. 
35  Viet.  c.  26,  §  28;  38  Viet.  c.  14,  §  2.  Im- 
portation of  parts  will -not  invalidate.  An- 
derson Tire  Co.  v.  American  Dunlop  Tire  Co., 
5  Can.  Exch.  82.  Trifling  and  accidental  im- 
portation will  not  invalidate.  Consolidated 
Car  Heating  Co.  v.  Came,  18  Quebec  Super. 
Ct.  44. 

1.  See  supra,  I,  A,  3;  V,  B,  2,  a.  And  see 
Stevens  v.  Seher,  11  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  245; 
B6n6  v.  Jeantet,  129  U.  S.  683,  9  S.  Ct.  428, 
32  L.  ed.  803;  Wood  v.  Underbill,  5  How. 
(U.  S.)  1,  12  L.  ed.  23;  Panzl  v.  Battle  Island 
Paper  Co.,  138  Fed.  48,  70  C.  C.  A.  474 
[modifying  132  Fed.  607] ;  Windle  v.  Parks, 
etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  134  Fed.  381,  67  C.  C.  A.  363; 
Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78  Fed.  910,  24  C.  C.  A. 
384. 

The  description  is  sufficient  if  it  enables 
those  skilled  in  the  art  to  make  it.  Dolbear 
v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  126  U.  S.  1,  8 
S.  Ct.  778,  31  L.  ed.  863;  Lawther  v.  Hamil- 
ton, 124  U.  S.  1,  8  S.  Ct.  342,  31  L.  ed.  325; 
Eames  v.  Andrews,  122  U.  S.  40,  7  S.  Ct. 
1073,  30  L.  ed.  1064;  Sewall  v.  Jones,  91 
U.  S.  171,  23  L.  ed.  275;  Mowry  v.  Whitney, 
14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  620,  20  L.  ed.  860;  Weg- 
mann  v.  Corcoran,  13  Ch.  D.  65,  41  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  358,  28  Wkly.  Rep.  331;  Plimpton  v. 
Malcolmson,  3  Ch.  D.  531,  45  L.  J.  Ch.  505, 
34  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  340 ;  Parkes  v.  Stevens, 
L.  R.  8  Eq.  358,  38  L.  J.  Ch.  627,  17  Wkly. 
Rep.  846  [affirmed  in  L.  R.  5  Ch.  36,  22  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  635,  18  Wkly.  Rep.  233] ;  Felton 
v.  Greaves,  3  C.  &  P.  611,  14  E.  C.  L.  743; 
Simpson  v.  Holliday,  12  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  99, 
13  Wkly.  Rep.  577  [affirmed  in  L.  R.  1  H.  L. 
315,  35  L.  J.  Ch.  811]. 

Omissions  obvious  to  mechanic  will  not  in- 
[VI,  B,  1] 


validate.  Crossley  v.  Beverly,  9  B.  &  C.  63, 
17  E.  C.  L.  38,  3  C.  &  P.  513,  14  E.  C.  L. 
690,  7  L.  J.  K.  B.  O.  S.  127,  M.  &  M.  283, 
22  E.  C.  L.  522,  1  Russ.  &  M.  166  note,  5 
Eng.  Ch.  166  note,  39  Eng.  Reprint  65. 

Drawings  may  aid  in  disclosure.  Bloxam 
v.  Elsee,  6  B.  &  C.  169,  13  E.  C.  L.  88,  1 
C.  &  P.  558,  12  E.  C.  L.  320,  9  D.  &  R.  215, 
5  L.  J.  K.  B.  0.  S.  104,  R.  &  M.  187,  30  Rev. 
Rep.  275;  Daw  v.  Eley,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
399,  14  Wkly.  Rep.  126. 

The  means  for  accomplishing  a  result  cov- 
ered by  a  patent  need  not  be  illustrated 
therein,  if  they  are  sufficiently  described  in 
the  specification.  Hillard  v.  Fisher  Book 
Typewriter  Co.,  151  Fed.  34  [affirmed  in  159 
Fed.  439]. 

Ambiguous  or  misleading  patent  is  void. 
Hastings  v.  Brown,  1  E.  &  B.  450,  17  Jur. 
647,  22  L.  J.  Q.  B.  161,  72  E.  C.  L.  450; 
Patent  Type-Founding  Co.  v.  Richard,  Johns. 
381,  6  Jur.  N.  S.  39,  70  Eng.  Reprint  470; 
Turner  v.  Winter,  1  T.  R.  602. 

Particular  descriptions  held  insufficient 
see  Smith  v.  Murray,  27  Fed.  69;  Blake  v. 
Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,504,  6  Blatchf. 
195,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  294;  Evans  v.  Cham- 
bers, 8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,555,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
7,  2  Wash.  125 ;  Whitney  0.  Emmett,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17.585,  Baldw.  303,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
567;  Betts'r.  Neilson,  L.  R.  3  Ch.  429,  37 
L.  J.  Ch.  321,  18  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  165,  16 
Wkly.  Rep.  524;  Hinks  v.  Safety  Lighting 
Co.,  4  Ch.  D.  607.  46  L.  J.  Ch.  185,  36  L.  T, 
Rep.  N.  S.  391;  Rex.  v.  Wheeler,  2  B.  &  Aid. 
345,  20  Rev.  Rep.  465 ;  Sturz  v.  De  la  Rue,  7 
L.  J.  Ch.  O.  S.  47,  5  Russ.  322,  5  Eng.  Ch. 
322,  38  Eng.  Reprint  1048,  29  Rev.  Rep.  24; 
Taylor  v.  Brandon  Mfg.  Co.,  21  Ont.  App. 
361. 

Particular  descriptions  held  sufficient  see 
Valentine  v.  Marshall,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,812a;  Wheeler  v.  Clipper  Mower,  etc.,  Co., 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,493,  10  Blatchf.  181,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1,  2  Off.  Gaz.  442 ;  Ralston  v. 
Smith,  11  H.  L.  Cas.  223,  20  C.  B.  N.  S.  28, 
35  L.  J.  C.  P.  49,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  1,  11 
Reprint  1318;  Smith  v.  Mutchmore,  11  U.  C. 
C.  P.  458;  Smith  v.  Ball,  21  U.  C.  Q.  B. 
122. 

2.  Bignall    v.    Harvey,    4     Fed.     334,     18 
Blatchf.  353 ;  Northwestern  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  v.  Philadelphia  Fire  Extinguisher  Co.,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,337,  1  Ban.  &  A.  177,  6  Off. 
Gaz.   34,   10  Phila.    (Pa.)    227. 

3.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4920;   Carlton 
v.  Bokee,   17   Wall.    (U.   S.)    463,  21    L.   ed. 
517;  Mowry  v.  Whitney,   14  Wall.    (U.  S.) 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     90T 


matters  not  vital,  will  not,  however,  invalidate  the  patent  if  they  are  due  to 
mistake.4 

b.  Suppression  of  Facts.  A  fraudulent  suppression  of  material  facts  about 
the  invention  in  the  specification  will  render  the  patent  void.5  To  invalidate  .the 
patent,  however,  the  omissions  must  have  been  made  with  intent  to  deceive.6 
Omissions  due  to  mistake  or  error  of  judgment  will  not  invalidate  the  patent,  pro- 
vided the  specification  is  sufficient  to  enable  those  skilled  in  the  art  to  make  and 
use  the  invention.7 

5.  JOINDER   OF   SEVERAL   INVENTIONS.     A  patent  is  not  invalid  for  misjoinder 
therein  of  claims  to  separate  inventions  if  those  inventions  are  connected  in  design 
and  operation  and  mutually  contribute  to  the  production  of  a  single  result.8 

6.  DOUBLE  PATENTING.     Where  more  than  one  patent  is  granted  to  one  inventor 
for  a  single  invention,  the  first  only  is  valid.9     The- invention  covered  by  two  pat- 


620,  20  L.  ed.  860 ;  Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78 
Fed.  910,  24  C.  C.  A.  384;  Child  v.  Adams,  5 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,673,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189,  3 
Wall.  Jr.  20 ;  Delano  v.  Scott,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,753,  Gilp.  489,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  700;  Reg. 
v.  Cutler,  14  Q.  B.  372  note,  68  E.  C.  L.  373, 
3  C.  &  K.  215,  1  Stark.  354,  2  E.  C.  L.  138. 
See  supra,  V,  B,  2,  f ;  infra,  VI,  B,  4,  b. 

The  title  must  correctly  indicate  what  is 
described  or  the  patent  is  void.  Cook  v. 
Pearce,  8  Q.  B.  1044,  8  Jur.  499,  13  L.  J. 
Q.  B.  189,  55  E.  C.  L.  1044 ;  Rex  v.  Wheeler,  2 

B.  &  Aid.   345,   20  Rev.   Rep.  465;    Croll  v. 
Edge,  9  C.  B.  479,  19  L.  J.  C.  P.  261,  14  Jur. 
553,  67  E.  C.  L.  479. 

Title  may  be  broader  than  description  see 
Oxley  v.  Holden,  8  C.  B.  N.  S.  666,  30  L.  J. 

C.  P.  68,  2  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  464,  8  Wkly.  Rep. 
626,  98  E.  C.  L.  666 ;  Patent  Bottle  Envelope 
Co.  v.  Seymer,  5  C.  B.  N.  S.  164,  5  Jur.  N.  S. 
174,  28  L.  J.  C.  P.  22,  94  E.  C.  L.  164 ;  Nick- 
ells  v.  Haslam,  8  Jur.  474,  13  L.  J.  C.  P.  146, 

7  M.  &  G.  378,  8  Scott  N.  R.  97,  49  E.  C.  L. 
378;   Neilson  v.  Harford,  11  L.  J.  Exch.  20, 

8  M.  &  W.  806. 

4.  Hemolin  Co.  v.  Harway  Dyewood,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  138  Fed.  54,  70  C.  C.  A.  480  [affirm- 
ing 131  Fed.  483] ;  Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78 
Fed.  910,  24  C.  C.  A.  384;  Blanchard's  Gun 
Stock   Turning    Factory   v.   Warner,    3    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,521,  1  Blatchf.  258,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
184. 

Mistake  as  to  theory  of  operation  will  not 
invalidate.  See  supra,  V,  B,  2,  d. 

5.  U.   S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §    4920;    Phila- 
delphia,   etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Dubois,    12    Wall. 
(U.  S.)    47,    20   L.   ed.    265;    Electric   Boot, 
etc.,  Finishing  Co.  v.  Little,  75  Fed.  276  [af- 
firmed in  138  Fed.  732,  71  C.  C.  A.  270].    And 
see  supra,  V,  B,  2,  f. 

English  practice. —  Patent  must  distinguish 
between  what  is  original  and  what  was  com- 
municated from  abroad.  Renard  v.  Levin- 
stein, 10  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  177.  Must  describe 
best  mode  of  practising  invention.  Wood  V. 
Zimmer,  Holt  58,  17  Rev.  Rep.  605,  3  E.  C.  L. 
32;  Neilson  v.  Harford,  11  L.  J.  Exch.  20, 
8  M.  &  W.  806. 

Suppression  not  shown  see  Edison,  etc., 
Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Woodhouse,  32  Ch.  D. 
520,  55  L.  J.  Ch.  243,  55  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
263,  34  Wkly.  Rep.  626. 

6.  Featherstone  v.  George  R.  Bidwell  Cycle 


Co.,  53  Fed.  113;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Rus- 
sell, 37  Fed.  676 ;  Ligowski  Clay-Pigeon  Co.  t?. 
American  Clay-Bird  Co.,  34  Fed.  328 ;  Gray 
•17.  James,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,718,  Pet.  C.  C. 
394,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  120 ;  Park  v.  Little,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,715,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  17,  3 
Wash.  196;  Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,000,  1  Gall.  478,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
40. 

7.  Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78  Fed.  910,  24 
C.  C.  A.  384;  Michaelis  v.  Roessler,  34  Fed. 
325;    McKesson   v.    Carnick,    9    Fed.    44,    19 
Blatchf.   158;   Grant  v.  Mason,   10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    5,701;    Kneass    v.    Schuylkill    Bank,    14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,875,   1   Robb  Pat.   Cas.  303, 
4  Wash.  9;  Singer  v.  Walmsley,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,900,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  558 ;  Whitney  v. 
Carter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,583. 

8.  U.  S.  v.  Allen,  192  U.  S.  543,  24  S.  Ct. 
416,  48  L.  ed.  555,  109  Off.  Gaz.  549;  Hogg 
v.  Emerson,  6  How.    (U.  S.)    437,   12  L.  ed. 
505;  Sanitas  Nut  Food  Co.  v.  Voigt,  139  Fed. 
551,  71   C.  C.  A.  535;   Wilkins  Shoe-Button 
Fastener   Co.   v.   Webb,    89    Fed.    982;    Fire- 
Extinguisher    Case,    21    Fed.    40.      And    see 
supra,  V,  B,  7. 

Machine  and  separate  parts  may  be 
claimed  in  one  case.  Holly  v.  Vergennes 
Mach.  Co.,  4  Fed.  74,  18  Blatchf.  327;  Foss 
V.  Herbert,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,9-57,  1  Biss. 
121,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  31. 

Process  and  article  must  be  covered  by 
separate  claims.  Merrill  v.  Yeomans,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,472,  1  Ban.  &  A.  47,  Holmes  331 
[affirmed  in  94  U.  S.  568,  24  L.  ed.  235]. 

Designs. —  Entire  design  and  parts  may  be 
claimed.  Dobson  v.  Bigelow  Carpet  Co.,  114 
U.  S.  439,  5  S.  Ct.  945,  29  L.  ed.  177  {.re- 
versing 10  Fed.  385]. 

9.  Hill  v.  Patent  Com'r,  4  Mackey  (D.  C.) 
266;   Jackson  v.  Lawton,   10  Johns.    (N.  Y.) 
23,  6  Am.  Dec.  311;  Miller  v.  Eagle  Mfg.  Co., 
151  U.  S.  186,  14  S.  Ct.  310,  38  L.  ed.   121; 
Underwood  v.  Gerber,  149-  U.  S.  224,  13  S.  Ct. 
854,  37  L.  ed.  710;  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Beat  'Em  All  Barbed- Wire  Co.,  143  U.  S. 
275,  12  S.  Ct.  443,  36  L.  ed.  154;  Mosler  Safe, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Mosler,   127  U.  S.  354,  8  S.  Ct. 
1148,  32  L.  ed.  182;  Suffolk  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hay- 
den,    3    Wall.    (U.    S.)     315,    18    L.    ed.    76; 
Palmer  Pneumatic  Tire  Co.  v.  Lozier,  90  Fed. 
732,    33    C.    C.    A.   255;    Palmer   v.   John   E. 
Brown    Mfg.    Co.,    84    Fed.    454;    Thompson- 

[VI,  B,  6] 


908    [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


ents  is  not  different  merely  because  it  is  differently  stated  in  the  claims,  since 
there  must  be  a  material  difference  in  the  subject-matter  and  not  merely  in  the 
scope  of  the  claims.10 

7.  CLAIMS11  —  a.  In  General.  Some  claims  made  in  a  patent  maybe  invalid 
without  invalidating  the  entire  patent,  since  each  claim  is  separately  considered 
and  is  a  separate  statement  of  the  field  intended  to  be  covered.12 


Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Western  Electric  Co., 

70  Fed.  69,  16  C.  C.  A.  642;  Russell  v.  Kern, 
69  Fed.  94,  16  C.  C.  A.  154;  Westinghouse  v. 
New   York    Air-Brake    Co.,    63    Fed.    962,    11 
C.  C.  A.  342;  Fassett  v.  Ewart  Mfg.  Co.,  62 
Fed.  404,  10  C.  C.  A.  441;  Electrical  Accumu- 
lator Co.  v.  Brush  Electric  Co.,  52  Fed.  130, 
2  C.  C.  A.  682;  Consolidated  Roller-Mill  Co. 
v.  Coombs,  39  Fed.  25;  McMillan  v.  Rees,  1 
Fed.  722;   Jones  v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,495,   3   Cliff.  563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3 
Off.  Gaz.  630;  Morris  v.  Huntington,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,831,  1  Paine  348,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
448;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Union 
R.  Co.,  83  Off.   Gaz.  597;   Thomson-Houston 
Electric  Co.  «.  Hoosick  R.  Co.,  80  Off.  Gaz. 
967;   Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  West- 
ern Electric  Co.,  73  Off.  Gaz.  1123. 

English. —  Crown  may  grant  second  patent. 
National  Hollow  Brake-Beam  Co.  v.  Inter- 
changeable Brake-Beam  Co.,  106  Fed.  693,  45 
C.  C.  A.  544;  Barnes  Automatic  Sprinkler  Co. 
v.  Walworth  Mfg.  Co.,  60  Fed.  605,  9  C.  C.  A. 
154;  In  re  Gething,  L.  R.  9  Ch.  633;  Ex  p. 
Manceaux,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  272,  18  Wkly.  Rep. 
1184;  In  re  Bering,  13  Ch.  D.  393,  42  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  634,  28  Wkly.  Rep.  710. 

If  issued  on  the  same  day,  the  patentee 
may  elect.  H.  W.  Johns  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Robert- 
son, 89  Fed.  504;  Electrical  Accumulator  Co. 
v.  Brush  Electric  Co.,  52  Fed.  130,  2  C.  C.  A. 
682.  Or  they  are  presumed  to  have  issued  in 
numerical  order.  Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Standard  Stopper  Co.,  136  Fed.  841,  69 
C.  C.  A.  200. 

Splitting  up  inventions  not  approved.  Nor- 
den  v.  Spaulding,  24  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
286. 

10.  In  re  Creveling,  25  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
530;  Miller  v.  Eagle  Mfg.  Co.,  151  U.  S.  186, 
14  S.  Ct.  310,  38  L.  ed.  121;  Otis  Elevator 
Co.  f.  Portland  Co.,  127  Fed.  557,  62  C.  C.  A. 
339  [affirming  119  Fed.  928];  Thomson- 
Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Elmira,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

71  Fed.  39-6,  18  C.  C.  A.  145;  Root  v.  Sioux 
City  Cable  R.  Co.,  42  Fed.  412. 

Different  parts  of  the  same  machine  may 
be  separately  patented.  Thomson-Houston 
Electric  Co.  v.  Black  River  Traction  Co.,  135 
Fed.  759,  68  C.  C.  A.  461;  Ide  v.  Trorlicht, 
etc.,  Carpet  Co.,  115  Fed.  137,  53  C.  C.  A. 
341 ;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Elmira, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Fed.  396,  18  C.  C.  A.  145; 
Cahn  v.  Wong  Town  On,  19  Fed.  424,  9  Sawy. 
630;  McMillan  v.  Rees,  1  Fed.  722;  Ex  p. 
Hayden,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,256;  Hayden  v. 
James,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,260.  Party  may 
patent  improvement  upon  his  own  patented 
device.  O'Reilly  v.  Morse,  15  How.  (U.  S.) 
62,  14  L.  ed.  601;  Ryan  V.  Newark  Spring 
Mattress  Co.,  96  Fed.  100 ;  Aspinwall  Mfg.  Co. 
1?.  Gill,  32  Fed.  697;  Mathews  v.  Flower,  25 

[VI,  B,  6] 


Fed.  830.  Patent  for  improvement  does  not 
invalidate  subsequent  broad  patent  granted 
on  a  co-pending  application.  Cleveland  Foun- 
dry Co.  v.  Detroit  Vapor  Stove  Co.,  131  Fed. 
853,  68  C.  C.  A.  233;  Badische  Anilia,  etc., 
Fabrik  v.  Klipstein,  125  Fed.  543;  Westing- 
house  Electric,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Dayton  Fan, 
etc.,  Co.,  106  Fed.  724;  Allington,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Globe  Co.,  89  Fed.  865 ;  Allington,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Glor,  83  Fed.  1014;  Thomson-Houston 
Electric  Co.  v.  Ohio  Brass  Co.,  80  Fed.  712, 
26  C.  C.  A.  107;  Thomson-Houston  Electric 
Co.  v.  Elmira,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  257  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  71  Fed.  396,  18 
C.  C.  A.  145] ;  Eagle  Mfg.  Co.  r.  Bradley,  35 
Fed.  295;  Holmes  Electric  Protective  Co.  v. 
Metropolitan  Burglar  Alarm  Co.,  33  Fed.  254; 
Singer  v.  Braunsdorf,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,897, 
7  Blatchf.  521;  Independent  Electric  Co.  v. 
Jeffrey  Mfg.  Co.,  78  Off.  Gaz.  797;  National 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Wheeler,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  74  Off. 
Gaz.  1588;  Railway  Register  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Broadway,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  30  Off.  Gaz.  180; 
Swift  17.  Jenks,  27  Off.  Gaz.  621;  Graham  v. 
Geneva  Lake  Crawford  Mfg.  Co.,  21  Off.  Gaz. 
1536;  Graham  v.  McCormick,  21  Off.  Gaz. 
1533. 

Machine,  process,  and  produce  may  be 
separately  patented.  Simonds  Rolling-Mach. 
Co.  i?.  Hathorn  Mfg.  Co.,  90  Fed.  201;  McKay 
v.  Dibert,  5  Fed.  587;  Goodyear  v.  Providence 
Rubber  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,583,  2  Cliff. 
351,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  499;  Goodyear  v.  Wait, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,587,  5  Blatchf.  468,  3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  242;  Merrill  v.  Yeomans,  17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,472,  1  Ban.  &  A.  47,  Holmes 
331,  5  Off.  Gaz.  268  [affirmed  in  94  U.  S. 
568,  24  L.  ed.  235]. 

Designs. —  Design  patent  invalid  in  view 
of  prior  mechanical  patent.  Gary  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Neal,  90  Fed.  725. 

Mechanical  patent  invalid  in  view  of  prior 
design  patent.  Williams  Calk  Co.  i?.  Never- 
slip  Mfg.  Co.,  136  Fed.  210  [affirmed  in  145 
Fed.  928,  76  C.  C.  A.  466]. 

11.  Disclaimers  see  infra,  IX. 

12.  U.  S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §§   4917,  4922 
[U.    S.    Comp.    St.    (1901)    pp.   3393,    3390]; 
Hotchkiss  v.  Oliver,  5  Den.  (N.  Y.)  314;  Sey- 
mour v.  McCormick,  19  How.    (U.  S.)   90,  15 
L.   ed.    557;    Hake    v.   Brown,   37   Fed.    783; 
Cahoon   v.    Ring,    4    Fed.   Cas.    No.    2,292,    1 
Cliff.  592,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  397;  Kelleher  v. 
Darling,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,653,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
438,  4  Cliff.  124,  14  Off.  Gaz.  673;  Peterson 
v.  Wooden,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,038,  3  McLean 
248,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  116;  Rumford  Chemical 
Works  v.  Lauer,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,135,  10 
Blatchf.  122,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  615,  3  Off.  Gaz. 
349;    Stephens    v.    Felt,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
13,368,   2   Blatchf.    37,    Fish.   Pat.    Rep.    144. 
Patent  may  be  valid  for  part.     Frearson  v. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     909 


b.  Excessive  Claims.  Where  claims  are  so  broad  as  to  include  prior  inven- 
tions they  are  invalid,13  and  where  they  do  not  identify  the  invention  of  the 
patentee  they  are  invalid.14 

8.  DELAY  OF  APPLICATION  IN  PATENT  OFFICE.     A  patent  is  not  rendered  invalid 
by  delays  in  the  patent  office  where  the  applicant  for  patent  takes  proper  action 
in  prosecution  of  his  application  within  the  time  fixed  by  statute.15 

9.  JURISDICTION  TO  DETERMINE  VALIDITY.     A  patent  is  merely  prima  facie  valid, 
and  the  United  States  courts  have  jurisdiction  to  declare  them  invalid  in  whole 
or  in  part,  where  the  issue  as  to  their  validity  is  raised  in  a  proper  proceeding.16     In 
a  suit  for  infringement  of  a  patent  the  court  may  give  judgment  for  defendant 
on  the  ground  that  the  patent  is  invalid,  but  it  cannot  in  such  a  proceeding  annul 
the  patent,  and  in  the  case  of  interfering  patents  may  declare  one  void ;  out  it  ia 


Loe,  9  Ch.  D.  48,  27  Wkly.  Rep.  183;  Plimp- 
ton v.  Spiller,  6  Ch.  D.  412,  47  L.  J.  Ch.  211, 
37  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  56,  26  Wkly.  Rep. 
285. 

Where  one  of  several  distinct  parts  claimed 
by  the  patentee  is  old,  the  entire  patent  is  for 
that  reason  void.  Kay  v.  Marshall,  5  Bing. 
N.  Cas.  492,  8  L.  J.  C.  P.  261,  7  Scott  548, 
35  E.  C.  L.  266  [affirmed  in  8  Cl.  &  F.  245, 
8  Eng.  Reprint  96,  5  Jur.  1028,  West  682,  9 
Eng.  Reprint  643] ;  Morgan  v.  Seaward,  1 
Jur.  527,  6  L.  J.  Exch.  153,  2  M.  &  W.  544, 
M.  &  H.  55. 

13.  Vance  v.  Campbell,  1  Black  (U.  S.) 
427,  17  L.  ed.  168;  Adjustable  Window  Screen 
Co.  v.  Bough  ton,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  81,  1  Ban.  & 
A.  327,  10  Phila.  (Pa.)  251;  Aiken  v.  Dolan, 
1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  110,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  197; 
Barrett  v.  Hall,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,047,  1 
Mason  447,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  207;  Blake  v. 
Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,504,  6  Blatchf. 
195,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  294;  Evans  v.  Eaton, 
8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559,  Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  68;  Hopkins,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cor- 
bin,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,695,  3  Ban.  &  A.  19-9, 
14  Blatchf.  396,  14  Off.  Gaz.  3  [affirmed  in 
103  U.  S.  786,  26  L.  ed.  610];  Hovey  v. 
Stevens,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,746,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  567,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  17;  Odiorne  v. 
Winkley,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,432,  2  Gall.  51, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  52;  Stanley  v.  Hewitt,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,285;  Stanley  v.  Whipple,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,286,  2  McLean  35,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  1;  Stanley  Rule,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Davis, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,288;  Turner  v.  Johnson, 
24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,261,  2  Cranch  C.  C.  287, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  4;  Tyler  v.  Deval,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,307,  1  Code  Rep.  (N.  Y.)  30;  Watson 
v.  Bladen,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,277,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  510,  4  Wash.  580;  Whitney  v.  Em- 
mett,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,585,  Baldw.  303, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  567;  Whittemore  v.  Cutter, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,601,  1  Gall.  478,  1  Robb. 
Pat.  Cas.  40.  And  see  supra,  V,  B. 

Claim  so  broad  as  to  include  substances 
which  will  not  perform  the  necessary  func- 
tions is  void.  Consolidated  Electric  Light  Co. 
v.  McKeesport  Light  Co.,  159  U.  S.  465,  16 
S.  Ct.  75,  40  L.  ed.  221  [affirming  40  Fed. 
21] ;  De  Lamar  v.  De  Lamar  Min.  Co.,  117 
Fed.  240,  54  C.  C.  A.  272 ;  Rickard  v.  Du  Bon, 
97  Fed.  96;  Matheson  v.  Campbell,  78  Fed.  910, 
24  C.  C.  A.  384;  Wegmann  v.  Corcoran,  13 
Ch.  D.  65,  41  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  358,  28  Wkly. 


Rep.  331;    Stevens   v.  Keating,  2   Exch.   772, 

19  L.  J.  Exch.  57. 

Excessive  claim  is  void.  Minter  v.  Mower, 
6  A.  &  E.  735,  6  L.  J.  K.  B.  183,  1  N.  &  P. 
595,  W.  W.  &  D.  262,  33  E.  C.  L.  387 ;  Cam- 
pion v.  Benyon,  3  B.  &  B.  5,  6  Moore  C.  P.  71, 
23  Rev.  Rep.  549,  7  E.  C.  L.  574;  Hill  v. 
Thompson,  Holt  N.  P.  636,  3  E.  C.  L.  249, 
3  Meriv.  629,  17  Rev.  Rep.  156,  36  Eng.  Re- 
print 239,  2  Moore  C.  P.  424,  8  Taunt.  375, 

20  Rev.  Rep.  488,  4  E.  C.  L.   190;   Cochrane 
v.  Smethurst,  1  Stark.  205,  18  Rev.  Rep.  761, 
2  E    C    T     84 

14.  O'Reilly  v.   Morse,    15   How.    (U.    S.) 
62,  14  L.  ed.  601;  Manhattan  Gen.  Constr.  Co, 
V.  Helios-Upton  Co.,  135  Fed.  785;  Hoke  En- 
graving Plate  Co.  v.  Schraubstadter,  47  Fed. 
506;  Blake  v.  Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,504, 
6  Blatchf.  195,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  294;  Murray 
v.  Clayton,  L.  R.  7   Ch.   570,  20  Wkly.  Rep. 
649. 

15.  U.  S.  I?.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,   167 
U.  S.  224,  17  S.  Ct.  809,  42  L.  ed.   144   {af- 
firming 68  Fed.  542,  15  C.  C.  A.  569] ;  Electric 
Storage  Battery  Co.  v.  Buffalo  Electric  Car- 
riage Co.,  117  Fed.  314  [affirmed  in  120  Fed. 
672,  57  C.  C.  A.  183] ;  Thomson-Houston  Elec- 
tric Co.  v.  Winchester  Ave.  R.  Co.,  71  Fed. 
192;    Electrical    Accumulator    Co.    v.    Brush 
Electric   Co.,  52   Fed.    130,  2   C.   C.  A.   682; 
Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Electrical  Accumulator 
Co.,  47  Fed.  48;   Adams  v.  Edwards,   1   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  53,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1 ;  Dental  Vul- 
canite Co.  v.  Wetherbee,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,810, 
2  Cliff.  555,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  87;  Howard  v. 
Christy,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,754,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
457,  10  Off.  Gaz.  981;  Sayles  v.  Chicago,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,414,  1  Biss.  468, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  523;  Sparkman  v.  Higgins, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,208,  1  Blatchf.  205,  Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  110,  5  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  122. 

16.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §§   711,  4918, 
4920  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3394].     And 
see  infra,  VI,  E;  XIII,  A,  1;  XIII,  C,  2,  a. 

State  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  to  decide 
on  the  validity  of  a  patent.  Elmer  v.  Pennel, 
40  Me.  430. 

In  Canada  the  minister  of  agriculture  de- 
termines disputes  as  to  validity  under  Pat. 
Act  (1872),  §  28;  Smith  17.  Goldie,  9  Can. 
Sup.  Ct.  46  [affirming  7  Ont.  App.  628]; 
Toronto  Tel.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  2  Can. 
Exch.  524;  In  re  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  9  Ont.  339; 
In  re  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  7  Ont.  605. 

[VI,  B,  9] 


910     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


only  by  suit  instituted  by  the  government  that  the  United  States  courts  can  annul 
and  cancel  a  patent.17 

C.  Correction  or  Amendment  of  Patents.18    The  officials  of  the  govern- 
ment have  authority  to  correct  errors  made  by  them  in  the  issue  of  patents,19  and 
errors  made  by  the  applicant  may  be  corrected  by  disclaimer  or  reissue.20 

D.  Interfering"  Patents21—!.  IN  GENERAL.     Interfering  patents  are  those 
which  claim  the  same  invention  in  whole  or  in  part.22     Where  two  patents  are 
issued,  some  or  all  of  the  claims  of  which  are  substantially  the  same,  any  one 
interested  in  either  patent  or  any  one  interested  in  the  working  of  the  invention 
claimed  under  either  of  them  may  have  relief  against  the  interfering  patentee  by 
suit  in  equity  and  the  court  may  adjudge  either  patent  invalid.23 

2.  PROCEEDINGS.  The  suit  is  governed  by  ordinary  equity  rules,24  and  must  be 
brought  in  the  district  where  defendant  may  be  found.25  If  the  bill  fails  to  show 
that  defendants  are  the  owners  of  the  alleged  interfering  patent  it  is  bad  on  spe- 
cial demurrer.26  Suit  to  annul  an  interfering  patent  may  be  joined  with  suit 
for  infringement.27  It  is  not  necessary  for  defendant  to  file  a  cross  bill  to  obtain 
affirmative  relief.28  The  better  opinion  is  that  the  evidence  should  be  confined  to 
the  question  of  priority  of  invention  between  the  patentees,29  although  there  are 
authorities  to  the  effect  that  evidence  as  to  the  state  of  the  art  is  admissible.80 
The  suit  is  independent  of  any  interference  in  the  patent  office,  and  the  deposi- 


17.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §§   4918,  4920 
[U.  S.  Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.  3394];  U.  S.  V. 
American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  128  U.  S.  315,  9  S.  Ct. 
90,  32  L.  ed.  450;  Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14  Wall. 
(U.  S.)    434,  20  L.  ed.  858. 

In  Canada  the  court  may  determine  valid- 
ity in  an  infringement  suit.  St.  35  Viet.  c.  26, 
§  26;  Maw  v.  Massey-Harris  Co.,  13  Mani- 
toba 252. 

18.  Reissues  see  infra,  VIII. 

19.  Marsh    v.    Nichols,    128    U.    S.    605,    9 
S.  Ct.  1G8,  32  L.  ed.  538;  Bell  v.  Hearne,  19 
How.   (U,  S.)  252,  15  L.  ed.  614;  Woodworth 
v.  Hall,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,016,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  495,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  248;  Woodworth  v. 
Hall,  30   Fed.  Cas.  No.   18,017,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  517,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  389;  Reed  v.  Street, 

34  Off.  Gaz.  339. 

English  practice. —  The  master  of  the  rolls 
may  correct  clerical  errors.  In  re  Johnson, 
5  Ch.  D.  503,  46  L.  J.  Ch.  555.  Amendment 
by  way  of  correction  or  explanation  is  per- 
missible but  not  to  cover  an  enlarged  or  dif- 
ferent invention.  Kelly  v.  Heathman,  45  Ch. 
D.  256,  CO  L.  J.  Ch.  22,  63  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
517,  39  Wkly.  Rep.  91;  Marsden  t;.  Moser,  73 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  667.  Corrected  by  appli- 
cation to  lord  chancellor.  In  re  Nickel,  5 
Jur.  882,  1  Phil.  36,  19-  Eng.  Ch.  36,  41  Eng. 
Reprint  544. 

20.  See  infra,  VIII;   IX. 

In  Canada  the  law  as  to  disclaimer  and  re- 
issue is  much  like  the  United  States  law.  St. 

35  Viet.  c.  26,  §§  19-20;  38  Viet.  c.  14,  §  1. 

21.  Interferences  on  application  see  supra, 
V,  C,  8. 

22.  Nathan  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Craig,  49  Fed.  370. 
See  also  Dederick  v.  Fox,  56  Fed.  714. 

23.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4918   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3394];  Cantrell  v.  Wai- 
lick,   117  U.  S.  689,  6  S.  Ct.  970,  29  L.  ed. 
1017;    Robertson  v.  Blake,  94  U.  S.  728,  24 
L.  ed.  245;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  r. 
Western     Electric     Co.,     72     Fed.     530,     19 
C.  C.  A.    1;    Palmer   Pneumatic  Tire  Co.  9. 

[VI,  B,  9] 


Lozier,  69  Fed.  346;  Ecaubert  v.  Appleton,  67 
Fed.  917,  15  C.  C.  A.  73. 

That  parties  must  claim  as  well  as  show 
the  same  invention  see  Stonemetz  Printers' 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Brown  Folding-Mach.  Co.,  57 
Fed.  601;  Dederick  v.  Fox,  56  Fed.  714; 
Nathan  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Craig,  49  Fed.  370;  Mor- 
ris v.  Kempshall  Mfg.  Co.,  20  Fed.  121;  Gold, 
etc.,  Ore  Separating  Co.  v.  U.  S.  Disintegrat- 
ing Ore  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,508,  6  Blatchf. 
307,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  489. 

24.  Liggett,  etc.,  Tobacco  Co.  t?.  Miller,  1 
Fed.  203,  1  McCrary  31. 

Laches. —  Long  delay  bj  complainant  in 
filing  his  bill  after  an  adverse  decision  by  the 
commissioner  will  be  considered  as  bearing 
•n  the  good  faith  of  complainant's  proceed- 
ing, no  explanation  of  the  delay  being  offered. 
Sawyer  v.  Massey,  25  Fed.  144. 

25.  Prentiss  v.  Ellsworth,  27  Off.  Gaz.  623. 

26.  Nathan  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Craig,  47  Fed.  522. 

27.  American  Roll-Paper  Co.  V.  Knopp,  44 
Fed.  609. 

Complainant  may  sue  for  infringement  in- 
stead of  under  Rev.  St.  §  4918.  Western 
Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry  Electric  Co.,  59  Fed. 
295,  8  C.  C.  A.  129. 

28.  Electrical    Accumulator    Co.    v.    Brush 
Electric    Co.,    44    Fed.    602;    American   Clay- 
Bird  Co.  v.  Ligowski  Clay-Bird  Co.,  31  Fed. 
466;   Lockwood  v.  Cleaveland,  6  Fed.  721. 

Where  affirmative  relief  is  prayed  in  the 
answer  plaintiff  cannot  dismiss.  Electrical 
Accumulator  Co.  v.  Brush  Electric  Co.,  44 
Fed.  602. 

29.  Palmer  Pneumatic  Tire  Co.  v.  Lozier, 
84  Fed.   659    [reversed  on  other  grounds   in 
90  Fed.  732,  33  C.  C.  A.  255]  ;  Nathan  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Craig,  47  Fed.  522 ;  American  Clay-Bird 
Co.  v.  Ligowski  Clay-Pigeon  Co.,  31  Fed.  466; 
Sawyer  v.  Massey,  25  Fed.  144;  Pentlarge  v. 
Pentlarge,  19- Fed.  817. 

30.  Palmer  Pneumatic  Tire  Co.  v.  Lozier, 
90  Fed.    732,   33   C.   C.   A.   255;    Ecaubert  v. 
Appleton,  67  Fed.  917,  15  C.  C.  A.  73;  Foster 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     911 


tions  there  taken  are  not  ordinarily  admissible  in  evidence.31  Where  two  patents 
interfere  there  is  a  rebuttable  presumption  that  the  patentee  who  first  filed  his 
application  is  the  first  inventor.32 

3.  JUDGMENT.  If  there  is  no  interference  in  fact  the  bill  of  complaint  will  be 
dismissed.33  If  there  is  an  interference  the  court  will  declare  the  patent  of  the 
later  inventor  void  in  whole  or  in  part,  or  as  inoperative  or  invalid  in  a  specified 
part  of  the  United  States  in  accordance  with  the  interest  of  the  parties,34  and  may 
grant  relief  by  injunction  when  necessary  to  protect  the  rights  of  a  party.85  The 
judgment  does  not  affect  the  rights  of  persons  not  parties  to  the  suit  unless  they 
acquire  title  from  one  of  the  parties  subsequently.36 

E.  Annulment  or  Repeal.  The  United  States  government  can  maintain  a 
suit  in  the  United  States  courts  to  annul  or  cancel  a  patent  on  the  ground  that  it 
was  obtained  through  fraud,  but  no  individual  can  bring  or  maintain  such  a  suit.87 
The  matter  of  instituting  suit  is  within  the  control  of  the  attorneys  for  the  gov- 
ernment, and  they  are  not  required  to  institute  such  suit  at  the  request  of  a  party 
who  declares  the  patent  to  be  invalid.88  Suit  may  be  maintained  by  the  govern- 
ment not  only  when  it  has  a  proprietary  and  pecuniary  interest  in  the  result,  but  also 
when  it  is  necessary'in  order  to  enable  it  to  discharge  its  obligations  to  the  public, 
and  sometimes  when  the  purpose  and  effect  are  simply  to  enforce  the  rights  of  an 
individual ; 89  and  prayers  for  cancellation  of  two  patents  relating  to  the  same 


v.   Lindsay,   9   Fed.   Cas.   No.   4,975,    1    Ban. 
&  A.  605,  7  Off.  Gaz.  514. 

31.  Ecaubert  v.  Appleton,  67  Fed.  917,  15 
C.  C.  A.  73;   Atkinson  v.  Boardman,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  607. 

Where  the  depositions  cannot  be  retaken, 
it  has  been  held  that  they  may  be  read.  Clow 
v.  Baker,  36  Fed.  692. 

32.  Ashton  Valve  Co.  v.  Coale  Muffler,  etc., 
Co.,   50   Fed.    100    [affirmed  in  52   Fed.   314, 
3  C.  C.  A.  98] ;   American  Roll-Paper  Co.  v. 
Knopp,   44   Fed.    609;    Pelton   v.  Waters,    19 
Fed.    Cas.   No.   10,913,    1   Ban.  &  A.   599,   7 
Off.  Gaz.  425. 

33.  Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14  Wall.    (U.  S.) 
434.  20  L.  ed.  858;  Boston  Pneumatic  Power 
Co.  i;.  Eureka  Patents  Co.,  139  Fed.  29;  Sim- 
plex R.  Appliance  Co.  v.  Wands,  115  Fed.  517, 
53  C.  C.  A.  171;   Stonemetz  Printers'  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Brown  Folding-Mach.  Co.,  57  Fed.  601 ; 
Dederick  v.  Fox,  56  Fed.  714;   Nathan  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Craig,  49  Fed.  370;  Electrical  Accumu- 
lator Co.  17.  Brush  Electric  Co.,  44  Fed.  602; 
Morris  v.  Kempshall  Mfg.  Co.,  20  Fed.  121; 
Gold,  etc.,  Ore  Separating  Co.  v.  U.  S.  Dis- 
integrating Ore  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,508, 
6  Blatchf.  307,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  489. 

34.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4918   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3394].     Court  may  de- 
clare   either    or    both    patents    void.     Palmer 
Pneumatic  Tire  Co.  v.  Lozier,  90  Fed.  732,  33 
C.  C.  A.  255 ;  Foster  ».  Lindsay,  9  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  4,975,  1  Ban.  &  A.  605,  7  Off.  Gaz.  514. 

35.  Palmer  Pneumatic  Tire  Co.  v.  Lozier, 
69  Fed.  346;  Sawyer  v.  Massey,  25  Fed.  144. 

36.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4918   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3394];  Mowry  v.  Whit- 
ney,  14   Wall.    (U.   S.)    434,   20   L.  ed.   858. 
Does  not  prevent  suit  on  patent  where  claims 
are  different.    Brush  v.  Naugatuck  R.  Co.,  24 
Fed.  371,  23  Blatchf.  277. 

37.  U.   S.  17.  American  Bell   Tel.   Co.,   128 
U.  S.  315,  9  S.  Ct.  90,  32  L.  ed.  450;  Mowry 
v.  Whitney,  14  Wall.   (U.  S.)    434,  20  L.  ed. 


858;  Ex  p.  Wood,  9  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  603,  6 
L.  ed.  171 ;  U.  S.  v.  American  Lumber  Co., 
85  Fed.  827,  29  C.  C.  A.  431;  Atty.-Gen.  v. 
Rumford  Chemical  Works,  32  Fed.  608 ;  U.  S. 
v.  Gunning,  18  Fed.  511,  21  Blatchf.  516; 
Delano  v.  Scott,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,753,  Gilp. 
489,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  700 ;  Merserole  v.  Union 
Paper  Collar  Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,488,  6 
Blatchf.  356,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  483;  Thomp- 
son v.  Haight,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,956. 

English  practice. —  Scire  facias  abolished, 
and  now  patents  may  be  revoked  on  petition 
to  court  by  attorney-general  or  a  party  inter- 
ested. Act  (1883),  §  26.  Bill  in  equity  to 
set  aside  may  be  maintained  by  person  inter- 
ested where  fraud  alleged.  In  re  Avery,  36 
Ch.  D.  307,  56  L.  J.  Ch.  1007,  57  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  506,  36  Wkly.  Rep.  249;  Atty.-Gen.  v. 
Vernon,  2  Ch.  Rep.  353,  21  Eng.  Reprint  685, 
1  Vern.  Ch.  277,  23  Eng.  Reprint  468;  Re 
Edge,  63  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  370,  38  Wkly.  Rep. 
698;  Re  Morgan,  58  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  713. 

Canadian  practice. —  Scire  facias  to  annul 
must  be  by  attorney-general  and  not  by  pri- 
vate party.  Reg.  v.  Pattee,  5  Ont.  Pr.  292; 
Patent  Elbow  Co.  v.  Cunin,  10  Quebec  Super. 
Ct.  56.  Not  annulled  because  foreign  patent 
expired.  Reg.  v.  Ontario  Gen.  Engineering 
Co.,  6  Can.  Exch.  328. 

38.  New  York,  etc.,  Coffee  Polishing  Co.  t?. 
New  York  Coffee  Polishing  Co.,  9  Fed.  578,  20 
Blatchf.  174. 

Canadian  practice. —  Proceedings  according 
to  practice  on  scire  facias  in  England.  Smith 
v.  Goldie,  9  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  46 ;  Reg.  v.  Ontario 
Gen.  Engineering  Co.,  6  Can.  Exch.  328; 
Peterson  v.  Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.,  5  Can. 
Exch.  400;  Reg.  v.  La  Force,  4  Can.  Exch. 
14;  Reg.  v.  Hall,  27  U.  C.  Q.  B.  146. 

39.  U.   S.  v.  American   Bell  Tel.   Co.,   167 
U.  S.  224,  17  S.  Ct.  809,  42  L.  ed.  144. 

When  the  bill  to  annul  a  patent  is  really 
in  the  interest  of  private  parties,  who  have 
given  bond  to  indemnify  the  government  from 

[VI,  E] 


912     [30  Cye.]  PATENTS 

subject  and  owned  by  the  same  party  may  be  joined.40  It  cannot  maintain  a  suit 
to  repeal  on  grounds  that  have  been  sustained  in  a  suit  for  infringement,41  nor  ask 
an  injunction  restraining  the  commencement  or  prosecution  of  suits  for  infringe- 
ment of  a  patent  for  the  repeal  of  which  they  have  begun  an  action.42  The 
appropriate  remedy  is  by  bill  in  equity,43  and  actual  fraud  must  be  alleged  and 
proved.44 

F.  Estoppel  to  Dispute  Validity  —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  The  issuance  of  a  patent 
does  not  estop  the  patentee  from  proving  that  the  invention  claimed  therein  is 
not  novel  in  the  absence  of  bad  faith  in  procuring  such  patent.45  Nor,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  will  a  contest  in  the  patent  office  upon  the  question  of  priority  of  inven- 
tion foreclose  the  defeated  applicant  for  a  patent  from  assailing  the  validity  of 
the  patent  upon  other  grounds.46  A  patentee  is,  however,  estopped  to  deny  the 
correctness  of  the  description  in  the  specification  of  the  existing  art.47  So  also  a 
patentee,  who  secures  a  correction  limiting  the  life  of  his  patent,  is  estopped,  as 
against  inf ringers,  to  deny  the  validity  of  the  limitation.48  Furthermore  other 
persons  associated  with  him  in  the  ownership  of  rights  under  the  patent  are  also 
estopped,  in  the  absence  of  an  affirmative  showing  that  they  were  ignorant  of  his 
acts  in  procuring  the  limitation.49  An  answer  in  an  infringement  suit  asserting 
the  validity  of  a  patent  granted  to  defendant  estops  him  to  deny  on  the  hearing 
the  validity  of  a  similar  patent  granted  to  plaintiff.50  In  a  suit  upon  a  license  or 
contract,  which  contains  a  covenant  upon  the  part  of  the  licensee,  by  which  the 
validity  of  the  patent  is  admitted,  and  the  licensee  has  had  the  benefit  of  the 
license,  he  is  estopped  to  deny  the  validity  of  the  patent  by  setting  up  anything 
contrary  to  the  admissions  in  his  contract.51  So  a  covenant  or  agreement  not  to 
infringe  estops  the  parties  thereto  from  controverting  the  validity  of  the  patent.52 
But  it  has  been  held  that  an  arrangement  made  by  two  patentees,  by  way  of  com- 
promise to  avoid  litigation,  will  not  be  construed  as  an  acknowledgment  by  either 
of  the  validity  of  the  other's  patent,  so  as  to  estop  him  or  his  assigns  or  licensees 
to  deny  its  validity.53  Nor  does  a  mere  mercantile  agreement  not  to  deal  in  cer 
tain  patented  machines  operate  as  an  estoppel  to  deny  the  validity  of  the  patent.54 

2.  ESTOPPEL   OF   INFRINGER.     An    inf  ringer  cannot  deny    the  utility   of  the 
invention,  although  he  may  deny  its  novelty.55     But  it  has  been  held  that  one 

all  costs  and  who  could  have  set  up  the  mat-  50.  Russell,   etc.,  Mfg.   Co.   v.  Mallory,   21 

ters  on  which  the  suit  is  based  as  a  defense  Fed.  Gas.  No.  12,166,  10  Blatchf.  140,  5  *Fish. 

in  a  suit  against  them  by  the  patentee,   it  Pat.  Cas.  632,  2  Off.  Gaz.  495. 

must  be  dismissed.     U.  S.  v.  Frazer,  22  Fed.  51.  Marsh  v.  Harris  Mfg.  Co.,  63  Wis.  276, 

106.  22  N.  W.  516;   Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  •». 

40.  U.   S.  v.  American  Bell  Tel.   Co.,   128  Cincinnati   Barbed-Wire   Fence   Co.,   22    Fed. 
U.  S.  315,  9  S.  Ct.  90,  32  L.  ed.  450  {.reversing  712;  Evory  v.  Candee,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,583, 
32  Fed.  591].  4   Ban.   &   A.    545,    17    Blatchf.    200;    Magic 

41.  U.  S.  v.  Colgate,  32  Fed.  624.  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co.,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

42.  U.  S.  v.  Colgate,  21  Fed.  318.  8,949,  2  Ban.  &  A.  152,  13  Blatchf.  151,  8  Off. 

43.  U.    S.    v.    Gunning,    18    Fed.    511,    21  Gaz.  773;  Waterbury  Brass  Co.  v.  New  York, 
Blatchf.   516.  etc.,  Brass  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,256. 

44.  U.   S.   V.  American   Bell   Tel.   Co.,   167  52.  Hall  Mfg.  Co.  v.  American  R.  Supply 
U.  S.  224,  17  S.  Ct.  809,  42  L.  ed.  144  [affirm-  Co.,  48  Mich.  331,  12  N.  W.  205;   Brooks  v. 
ing  68  Fed.  542,  15  C.  C.  A.  569] ;  Mowry  v.  Moorhouse,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,956,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
Whitney,    14   Wall.    (U.   S.)    434,   20   L.  ed.  229,    13   Off.   Gaz.   499;   Magic   Ruffle   Co.    v. 
858;  U.  S.  i;.  Gunning,  18  Fed.  511,21  Blatchf.  Elm  City  Co.,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,949,  2  Ban. 
516;  Delano  v.  Scott,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,753,  &  A.  152,  13  Blatchf.  151,  8  Off.  Gaz.  773. 
Gilp.  489,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  700;   Stearns  v.  53.  Van  Hook  v.  Wood,  28   Fed.  Cas.  No. 
Barrett,   22   Fed.   Cas.   No.    13,337,    1   Mason  16,855.      See   also   White   v.   S.   Harris,   etc., 
153,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  97.  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  161. 

45.  Greenwood  v.  Bracher,  1  Fed.  856.  54.  Mannie   v.   Everett,    16   Fed.    Cas.   No. 

46.  Holliday  v.  Pickhardt,  29  Fed.  853.  9,039. 

47.  Hea ton-Peninsular  Button- Fastener  Co.  55.  Gandy  v.  Main  Belting  Co.,  143  U.  S. 
v.  Schlochtmeyer,  69  Fed.  592.  587,  12  S.  Ct.  598,  36  L.  ed.  272;  Simmond  v. 

48.  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.   Buckeye  Morrison,  44  Fed.  757;  Kirk  v.  Du  Bois,  33 
Electric  Co.,  64  Fed.  225.  Fed.  252  [affirmed  in  158  U.  S.  58,  15  S.  Ct. 

49.  Edison  Electric   Light  Co.  v.  Buckeye  729,  39  L.  ed.  895] ;  La  Rue  v.  Western  Elec- 
Electric  Co.,  64  Fed.  225.  trie  Co.,  31  Fed.  80,  24  Blatchf.  392  [affirmed 

[VI,  E] 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     913 


making   use  of   another's  patent  mark  is  estopped  to  deny  the  validity  of  the 
patent.56 

3.  ESTOPPEL  OF  ASSIGNOR.  One  who  assigns  a  patent  cannot  dispute  its  validity 
as  against  his  assignee.57  As  to  the  rest  of  the  world  the  patent  may  be  void  but 
the  assignor  is  estopped  from  urging  that  defense  against  his  assignee.58  The 
assignor  is  not  estopped,  however,  to  deny  infringement  or  to  show  that  the  patent 
is  limited  in  its  scope.59 


in  139  U.  S.  601,  11  S.  Ct.  670,  35  L.  ed. 
294];  Gray  v.  James,  10  Fed.  Gas.  No.  5,718, 
Pet.  C.  C.  394,  1  Robb  Pat.  Gas.  120;  Kneass 
v.  Schuylkill  Bank,  14  Fed.  Gas.  No.  7,875,  1 
Robb  Pat.  Gas.  303,  4  Wash.  9;  Vance  v. 
Campbell,  28  Fed.  Gas.  No.  16,836;  Vance  v. 
Campbell,  28  Fed.  Gas.  No.  16,837,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Gas.  483;  Whitney  v.  Mowry,  29  Fed. 
Gas.  No.  17,594,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  207  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  14  Wall.  620,  20 
L.  ed.  860]. 

56.  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Haish,  29 
Fed.  Gas.  No.  17,217,  4  Ban.  &  A.  571,  9  Biss. 
141,  18  Off.  Gaz.  465. 

57.  Mathews  Gravity  Carrier  Co.  v.  Lister, 
154  Fed.  490;  Wold  v.  Thayer,  148  Fed.  227, 
78   C.   C.  A.   350    [affirming   142   Fed.   776]; 
Frank  v.  Bernard,  131  Fed.  269   [affirmed  in 
135   Fed.   1021,   68   C.   C.  A.   566];    Force   v. 
Sawyer-Boss    Mfg.    Co.,    113    Fed.    1018,    51 
C.  C.  A.   592;    Alvin  Mfg.   Co.   v.   Scharling, 
100  Fed.   87;   Martin,  etc.,  Cash-Carrier  Co. 
v.   Martin,   67    Fed.    786,    14   C.   C.   A.   642; 
Woodward  v.  Boston  Lasting  Mach.  Co.,  60 
Fed.  283,  8  C.  C.  A.  622 ;  Corbin  Cabinet  Lock 
Co.  v.  Yale,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  58  Fed.  563 ;  Adee 
v.    Thomas,    41    Fed.    342;    American    Paper 
Barrel  Co.  v.  Lara  way,  28  Fed.  141;  Parker 
v.  McKee,  24  Fed.  808 ;  Underwood  v.  Warren, 
21  Fed.  573;  Curren  v.  Burdsall,  20  Fed.  835, 
31  Fed.  918;  Consolidated  Middlings  Purifier 
Co.  V.  Guilder,  9   Fed.  155,  3  McCrary  186; 
Bowman  v.  Taylor,  2  A.  &  E.  278,  4  L.  J. 
K.  B.  58,  4  N.  &  M.  264,  29  E,  C.  L.   142; 
Chambers  v.  Crichley,  33  Beav.  374,  55  Eng. 
Reprint  412;  Walton  v.  Lavater,  8  C.  B.  N.  S. 
162,  6  Jur.  N.  S.  1251,  29  L.  J.  C.  P.  275,  3 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  272,  98  E.  C.  L.  162;  Smith 
t7.  Scott,  6  C.  B.  N.  S.  771,  5  Jur.  N.  S.  1356, 
28  L.  J.  C.  P.  325,  95  E.  C.  L.  771 ;  Heugh  v. 
Chamberlain,   25   Wkly.   Rep.   742;    Clark  v. 
Adie,    21    Wkly.    Rep.    456    [affirmed    in    21 
Wkly.  Rep.   764]. 

Estoppel  to  deny  title  of  licensee. —  The 
owner  of  a  patent  who  grants  an  exclusive 
license  thereunder  is  estopped  to  deny  that  the 
licensee  took  good  title  to  the  privilege  which 
he  undertook  to  convey.  Seal  v.  Beach,  113 
Fed.  831. 

The  foundation  of  the  estoppel  against  a 
vendor  patentee  is  the  fact  that  he  has  re- 
ceived and  retained  a  valuable  thing  in  con- 
sideration of  the  statements  contained  in  the 
application  for,  or  specification  of,  the  pat- 
ent. Therefore,  when  an  assignment  is  made 
pending  the  application  for  a  patent,  it  is 
immaterial  whether  or  not  the  vendor  may 
have  made  representations  to  the  purchasers 
concerning  the  probability  of  obtaining  a  pat- 
ent. Nor  is  it  material  "that  the  purchasers 
knew  that  the  thing  sought  to  be  patented 
[58] 


was  old,  when  they  understood  that  the  pat- 
ent was  sought  for  a  new  application  and  use 
of  it.  National  Conduit  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Con- 
necticut Pipe  Mfg.  Co.,  73  Fed.  491. 

Infringement  of  another  patent. —  The  pat- 
entee is  estopped  to  deny  the  validity  of  the 
patent  on  the  ground  that  it  infringes  another 
patent  owned  by  him.  Essex  Button  Co.  v. 
Paul,  48  Fed.  310;  Adee  v.  Thomas,  41  Fed. 
346;  Curran  v.  Burdsall,  20  Fed.  835. 

A  patentee  whose  wife  has  sold  the  patent 
to  another  is  estopped  to  deny  the  validity 
of  the  patent.  Onderdonk  v.  Fanning,  4  Fed. 
148. 

Corporations. —  The  rule  applies  to  corpo- 
rations as  well  as  to  natural  persons.  Marvel 
Co.  r.  Pearl,  114  Fed.  946;  Force  v.  Sawyer- 
Boss  Mfg.  Co.,  Ill  Fed.  902  [.affirmed  in  113 
Fed.  1018,  51  C.  C.  A.  592]  ;  Edison  Electric 
Light  Co.  v.  Buckej^e  Electric  Co.,  64  Fed. 
225.  The  estoppel  against  the  assignor  of  a 
patent  operates  against  a  corporation  subse- 
quently formed  by  him,  and  which  is  en- 
tirely owned  and  controlled  by  him.  The  cor- 
poration will  be  estopped,  even  if  another 
party  has  a  substantial  interest  therein, 
where  it  appears  that  at  the  time  of  acquir- 
ing his  interest  he  had  known  of  the  patent 
and  its  assignment  and  had  been  associated 
with  the  assignor  in  the  line  of  business  to 
which  the  patent  relates.  National  Conduit 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Connecticut  Pipe  Mfg.  Co.,  73 
Fed.  491.  The  mere  fact,  however,  that  an 
inventor,  who  has  assigned  his  patent,  sub- 
sequently becomes  an  officer  in  a  corporation 
which  is  alleged  to  be  an  infringer  does  not 
render  applicable  to  such  corporation  the 
estoppel  which  operates  against  him  person- 
ally. Corbin  Cabinet  Lock  Co.  v.  Yale,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  58  Fed.  563. 

Mortgage  trustee  is  estopped.  Regina 
Music  Box  Co.  v.  Newell,  131  Fed.  606. 

Licensor  estopped.  National  Heeling-Mach. 
Co.  v.  Abbott,  77  Fed.  462. 

As  to  patent  not  sued  on  there  is  no  estop- 
pel. McCormick  Harvesting  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Aultman,  69  Fed.  371,  16  C.  C.  A.  259. 

58.  Alvin  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Scharling,   100  Fed. 
87;  Adee  v.  Thomas,  41  Fed.  346. 

59.  Noonan  v.  Chester  Park  Athletic  Club 
Co.,  99  Fed.  90,  39  C.  C.  A.  426;  Martin,  etc., 

.  Cash-Carrier  Co.  v.  Martin,  67  Fed.  786,  14 
C.  C.  A.  642;  Western  Tel.  Constr.  Co.  v. 
Stromberg,  66  Fed.  550;  Babcock  v.  Clarkson, 
63  Fed.  607,  11  C.  C.  A.  351;  Ball,  etc., 
Fastener  Co.  v.  Ball  Glove  Fastening  Co.,  58 
Fed.  818,  7  C.  C.  A.  498. 

A  limitation  on  this  doctrine,  however,  is 
that  he  cannot  insist  on  a  construction  that 
would  render  the  patent  valueless.  Hurwood 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wood,  138  Fed.  835. 

[VI,  F,  3] 


914     [80  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


4.  ESTOPPEL  OF  ASSIGNEE,  GRANTEE,  OR  LICENSEE.     A  licensee  or  grantee  cannot 
dispute  the  validity  of  the  patent  unless  it  has  been  pronounced  invalid  by  a  court 
of  last  resort.60     An  assignee  or  licensee  cannot  dispute  the  validity  of  the  patent 
for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  carrying  out  the  conditions  of  sale  or  license.61     A 
mere  offer  to  take  a  license  will  not  operate  as  an  estoppel,62  and  there  is  no  estop> 
pel  where  an  implied  license  is  alleged.63     A  corporation  is  not  estopped  by  a 
personal  license  to  a  stock-holder.64     In  the  absence  of  any  specific  agreement  not 
to  contest  the  validity  of  the  patent,  the  estoppel  of  a  lessee  or  licensee  is  confined 
to  the  particular  article  covered  by  the  lease  or  license ; C5  but  a  party  may  bind 
himself  generally  not  to  dispute  the  validity  of  the  patents  embodied  in  those 
articles.66 

5.  EXPIRED  LICENSE.     The  fact  that  a  party  once  operated  under  a  license  will 
not  estop  him  from  disputing  the  validity  of  the  patent,  unless  there  was  some 
agreement  by  him  to  that  effect.67 


60.  Hyatt  t?.  Dale  Tile  Mfg.  Co.,  106  N.  Y. 
651,  12  N.  E.  705  [affirmed  in  125  U.  S.  46, 
8  S.  Ct.  756,  31  L.  ed.  683] ;  Marston  v.  Swett, 
66  N.  Y.  206,  23  Am.  Rep.  43,  82  N.  Y.  526; 
Hyatt  v.  Ingalls,  49  N.   Y.  Super.  Ct.   375; 
Hardwick  v.  Galbraith,   147  Pa.  St.  333,  23 
Atl.  451;  Harvey  Steel  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  38  Ct.  Cl. 
662;  Clark  v.  A  die,  2  App.  Cas.  423,  46  L.  J. 
Ch.  598,  37  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  1,  26  Wkly.  Rep. 
45;   Hills  1?.  Laming,  9  Exch.  256,  23  L.  J. 
Exch.  60;    Crossley  v.  Dixon,   10  H.  L.  Cas. 
293,   9  Jur.  N.   S.  607,  32  L.  J.  Ch.   617,  8 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  260,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  716,  11 
Eng.  Reprint  1039;  Beam  v.  Merner,  14  Ont. 
412;  Whiting  v.  Tuttle,  17  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.) 
454;  Gray  v.  Billington,  21  U.  C.  C.  P.  288. 

Where  the  patent  has  been  pronounced  void, 
there  is  no  estoppel.  Hawkes  v.  Swett,  4 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  146;  Ross  v.  Fuller,  etc.,  Co., 
105  Fed.  510. 

The  licensee  may  dispute  construction 
given  to  patent  by  licensor.  Trotman  v. 
Wood,  16  C.  B.  N.  S.  479,  111  E.  C.  L.  479. 

61.  Illinois.—  Rhodes  v.  Ashurst,   176   111. 
351,  52  N.  E.  118;  Charter  Gas  Engine  Co.  v. 
Charter,   47   111.   App.    36.     Contra,   Pratt  v. 
Paris  Gas  Light,  etc.,  Co.,  51  111.  App.  603. 

Maine. —  Jones  v.  Burnham,  67  Me.  93,  24 
Am.  Rep.  10. 

Minnesota. —  Deane  v.  Hodge,  35  Minn.  146, 
27  N.  W.  917,  59  Am.  Rep.  321. 

New  Hampshire. —  Clark  t;.  Amoskeag  Mfg. 
Co.,  62  N.  H.  612. 

New  York.—  Saltus  v.  Belford  Co.,  133 
N.  Y.  499,  31  N.  E.  518;  Hyatt  v.  Ingalls, 
124  N.  Y.  93,  26  N.  E.  285;  Hyatt  v.  Dale 
Tile  Mfg.  Co.,  106  N.  Y.  651,  12  N.  E.  705; 
Marston  v.  Swett,  66  N.  Y.  206,  23  Am.  Rep. 
43;  General  Electric  Co.  V.  Nassau  Electric 
R.  Co.,  36  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  510,  55  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  858;  Skidmore  v.  Fahys  Watch-Case 
Co.,  28  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  9-4,  50  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
1016;  Denise  v.  Swett,  68  Hun.  188,  22  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  950;  Marsh  v.  Dodge,  4  Hun  278;  Bay- 
lis  v.  Bullock  Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  32  Misc.  218, 
66  N.  Y.  Suppl.  253  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  59  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  576,  69  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  693] ;  Kaffeman  v.  Stern,  23  Misc.  599, 
53  N.  Y.  Suppl.  260;  Montgomery  v.  Water- 
bury,  2  Misc.  145,  21  N.  Y.  Suppl.  637  [af- 
firmed in  142  N.  Y.  652,  37  N.  E.  569] ;  Smith 

[VI,  F,  4] 


v.  Standard  Laundry  Mach.  Co.,  11  Daly  154; 
Brusie  v.  Peck,  16  N.  Y.  Suppl.  648. 

Ohio. —  Ely  v.  Topliff,  41  Ohio  St.  357; 
Clark  v.  Bentel,  9  Ohio  Dec.  (Reprint)  289, 
12  Cine.  L.  Bui.  53. 

Pennsylvania. —  Jarecki  v.  Hays,  161  Pa.  St. 
613,  29  Atl.  118;  Hubbard  v.  Allen,  123 
Pa.  St.  198,  16  Atl.  772;  Patterson's  Appeal, 
99  Pa.  St.  521;  Hardwick  v.  Caves,  1  Pa. 
Dist.  137. 

United  States.—  U.  S.  v.  Harvey  Steel  Co., 
196  U.  S.  310,  25  S.  Ct.  240,  49  L.  ed.  492; 
Kinsman  v.  Parkhurst,  18  How.  289,  15  L.  ed. 
385;  United  Shoe  Mach.  Co.  v.  Gaunt,  134 
Fed.  239;  Consolidated  Rubber  Tire  Co.  v. 
Finley  Rubber  Tire  Co.,  116  Fed.  629;  Piaget 
Novelty  Co.  v.  Headley,  108  Fed.  870,  48 
C.  C.  A.  116  [affirming  107  Fed.  134] ;  Moore 
v.  National  Water-Tube  Boiler  Co.,  84  Fed. 
346;  Godell  v.  Wells,  etc.,  Co.,  70  Fed.  319-; 
Platt  v.  Fire-Extinguisher  Mfg.  Co.,  59  Fed. 
897,  8  C.  C.  A.  357;  National  Rubber  Co.  v. 
Boston  Rubber-Shoe  Co.,  41  Fed.  48;  Rogers 
v.  Riessner,  30  Fed.  525 ;  Birdsall  v.  Perego,  3 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,435,  5  Blatchf.  251;  Goodyear 
v.  Day,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,566;  Wilder  v. 
Adams,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,647,  2  Woodb. 
&  M.  329.  Contra,  Baltimore  Car-Wheel  Co. 
v.  North  Baltimore  Pass.  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  47; 
Pelham  v.  Edelmeyer,  15  Fed.  262,  21  Blatchf. 
188;  National  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Meyers,  7  Fed.  355; 
Mitchell  v.  Barclay,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,659; 
Morse  Arms  Mfg.  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  16  Ct.  Cl.  296. 

Contra. —  Sherman  v.  Champlain  Transp. 
Co.,  31  Vt.  162. 

62.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559, 
Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  68. 

63.  Harvey  Steel  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  38  Ct.  Cl. 
662. 

64.  Newark  Spring-Mattress  Co.  v.  Ryan, 
102  Fed.  693,  42  C.  C.  A.  594. 

65.  Dunham  v.  Bent,  72  Fed.  60. 

66.  Dunham  v.  Bent,  72  Fed.  60. 

67.  Stimpson  Computing  Scale  Co.  t>.  W.  F. 
Stimpson  Co.,  104  Fed.  893,  44  C.  C.  A.  241; 
Dueber  Watch-Case  Mfg.  Co.   v.  Robbins,   75 
Fed.  17,  21  C.  C.  A.  198   [reversing  71  Fed. 
186] ;  Mudgett  v.  Thomas,  55  Fed.  645;  Tibbe, 
etc.,    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Heineken,    37    Fed.    686; 
Blatherwick   v.   Carey,   9   Fed.   202,    10   Biss. 
494;  Burr  v.  Duryee",  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,190, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     915 


VII.  TERM.68 

A.  In  General  — 1.  MECHANICAL  PATENTS.  All  mechanical  patents  granted  in 
the  United  States  upon  applications  tiled  after  December  31,  1897,  have  a  term 
of  seventeen  years  from  the  date  of  the  grant.69  The  term  of  seventeen  years 
was  fixed  by  the  act  of  1871 ; 70  but  between  that  date  and  the  time  the  act  of 
March  3,  1897,  went  into  effect,  patents  were  limited  to  expire  with  foreign  pat- 
ents upon  the  invention.  Under  section  8,  the  act  of  1897  applied  only  to  patents 
granted  on  applications  filed  after  December  31,  1897.70a 

2.  DESIGNS.     The  term  of  a  design  patent  is  three  and  one-half,  seven,  or  four- 
teen years,  as  elected  in  the  application  for  patent.71 

3.  REISSUES.     A  reissued  patent  is  operative  only  for  the  unexpired  part  of 
the  term  of  the  original  patent.72 

4.  LIMITATION  BY  FOREIGN  PATENT  —  a.  In  General.    Patents  granted  upon  appli- 
cations filed  before  January  1,  1898,  are  by  statute  limited  to  expire  at  the  same 
time  as  any  foreign  patent  previously  procured  by  or  for  the  United  States  pat- 
entee having  the  shortest  term  to  run.73    The  question  of  secrecy  or  publicity  in  the 


2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  275  [affirmed  in  1  Wall. 
531,  17  L.  ed.  650,  660,  661];  Wooster  v. 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,039a, 
15  Reporter  524,  23  Off.  Gaz.  2513;  Gouch»r 
v.  Clayton,  11  Jur.  N.  S.  107,  34  L.  J.  Ch. 
239,  11  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  732,  13  Wkly.  Rep. 
336;  Dangerfield  v.  Jones,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
142. 

68.  Term  of  reissued  patent  see  infra,  VIII, 
A,  4. 

69.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4884   [U.  S. 
Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.  3381];    Guarantee  Ins. 
Trust,  etc.,   Co.   v.  Sellers,   123   U.  S.  276,  8 
S.  Ct.  117,  31  L.  ed.  153. 

In  England  the  term  is  fourteen  years  from 
date,  but  fees  must  be  paid  at  stated  times 
to  keep  it  in  force.  Act  (1883),  §  17. 

In  Canada  the  term  is  eighteen  years,  but 
the  fee  may  be  paid  for  only  six  years,  or 
twelve  if  so  elected.  St.  55  &  56  Viet.  c.  24, 
§  5. 

70.  12  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  249. 

70a.  United  Shoe  Mach.  Co.  v.  Duplessis 
Shoe  Mach.  Co.,  155  Fed.  842,  84  C.  C.  A. 
76. 

71.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4931   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   3399']. 

72.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4916   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3393]. 

73.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4887,  prior 
to  the  amendment  of  March  3,  1897,  29  U.  S. 
St.   at   L.    692    [U.   S.    Comp.   St.    (1901)    p. 
3382] ;    United   Shoe  Mach.  Co.  v.   Duplessis 
Shoe  Mach.   Co.,   155   Fed.   842,  84  C.   C.   A. 
76;    Bate    Refrigerating    Co.    v.    Sulzberger, 
157   U.  S.   1,   15   S.  Ct.   508,   39  L.  ed.  601; 
Commercial  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fairbank  Canning  Co., 
135  U.  S.    176,  10  St.  C.  718,  34  L.  ed.  88; 
Pohl  v.  Anchor  Brewing  Co.,  134  U.  S.  381, 
10  S.  Ct.  577,  33  L.  ed.  953;  Bate  Refriger- 
ating Co.  v.  Hammond,  129  U.  S.  151,  9  S.  Ct. 
225,  32  L.  ed.  645 ;  Dolbear  v.  American  Bell 
Tel.  Co.,  126  U.  S.  1,  8  S.  Ct.  778,  31  L.  ed. 
863 ;  Guarantee  Ins.  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sellers, 
123  U.  S.  276,  8  S.  Ct.   117,  31  L.  ed.   153; 
United    Shoe    Mach.    Co.    v.    Duplessis    Shoe 
Mach.  Co.,  148  Fed.  31 ;  Edison  Electric  Light 


Co.  v.  U.  S.  Electric  Lighting  Co.,  52  Fed. 
300,  3  C.  C.  A.  83;  Electrical  Accumulator 
Co.  v.  Brush  Electric  Co.,  52  Fed.  130,  2 
C.  C.  A.  682;  De  Florez  v.  Reynolds,  8  Fed. 
434,  17  Blatchf.  436;  Nathan  v.  New  York 
El.  R.  Co.,  2  Fed.  225;  Weston  f.  White,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,458,  2  Ban.  &  A.  321,  13 
Blatchf.  364,  9  Off.  Gaz.  1196. 

Assignment  of  right  to  patent. —  The  fact 
that  an  applicant  for  a  patent  assigned  his 
right  thereto  to  another  before  applying  for 
and  obtaining  a  foreign  patent  for  the  in- 
vention which  was  issued  before  the  one  in 
this  country  will  not  prevent  the  latter  from 
being  limited  to  the  term  of  the  foreign 
patent.  John  R.  Williams  Co.  v.  Miller,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  115  Fed.  526. 

The  statute  is  not  retroactive  and  does  not 
apply  to  American  patents  granted  before  the 
law  took  effect  or  to  the  reissues  of  such 
patents  granted  after  the  law  took  effect. 
Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  u.  Hamilton 
Mfg.  Co.,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  721,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
235,  13  Off.  Gaz.  273;  Goff  v.  Stafford,  10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,504,  3  Ban.  &  A.  610,  14 
Off.  Gaz.  748. 

"Term."— The  word  "term/'  which  when 
used  in  reference  to  a  foreign  patent,  when 
more  than  one  such  patent  exists,  indicates 
what  was  meant  as  the  time  of  duration. 
Paillard  v.  Br,uno,  29  Fed.  864,  865. 

In  England  the  patent  expires  with  any 
foreign  patent  granted  before  the  English 
patent.  In  re  Winan,  L.  R.  4  P.  C.  93,  8 
Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  306,  17  Eng.  Reprint  327; 
In  re  Betts  Patent,  9  Jur.  N.  S.  137,  7  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  577,  1  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  49,  1 
New  Rep.  137,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  221,  15  Eng. 
Reprint  621;  In  re  Bodmer,  8  Moore  P.  C. 
282,  14  Eng.  Reprint  108. 

In  Canada  the  patent  expires  with  any 
foreign  patent  in  existence  during  the  life 
of  the  Canadian  patent.  Dominion  Cotton 
Mills  Co.  Ltd.  v.  Ontario  Gen.  Engineering 
Co.,  [1902]  A.  C.  570,  71  L.  J.  P.  C.  119, 
87  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  186;  Auer  Incandescent 
Light  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Dreschel,  6  Can.  Exch.  55 

[VII,  A,  4,  a] 


916     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


foreign  patent  does  not  prevent  the  limitation.'4  To  act  as  a  limitation,  however, 
the  foreign  patent  must  be  procured  by  the  United  States  patentee  or  by  his  consent 
or  be  ratified  by  him.75  It  would  be  manifestly  unjust  that  a  patentee  should  lose 
the  full  fruits  of  his  patent  by  the  fact  that  some  intermeddler  had  caused  the  inven- 
tion to  be  patented  abroad.76  A  provisional  patent  issued  in  a  foreign  country  which 
merely  secures  the  applicant  against  the  effects  of  publication  for  three  years  and 
entitles  him  to  a  definitive  patent  on  making  the  required  proofs  of  the  existence  of 
either  the  article  itself  or  a  model  thereof  within  that  time  is  not  such  a  patent  as 
is  referred  to  in  the  statute,77  and  a  foreign  patent  void  ab  initio  will  not  limit  or 
invalidate  the  United  States  patent.78  The  rule  is  otherwise,  however,  as  to  a 
patent  issued  by  virtue  of  the  recognized  lawful  authority  vested  in  the  king  of 
a  foreign  country,  although  there  was  no  patent  law  in  the  shape  of  a  legislative 
enactment.79  Failure  to  limit  the  patent  on  its  face  so  as  to  expire  at  the  same 
time  with  the  prior  foreign  patent  having  the  shortest  time  does  not  affect  its 
validity.80  Although  the  patentee  procures  the  "  correction  "  of  a  patent  limiting 
it  to  expire  with  a  foreign  patent,  which  attempted  "  correction  "  is  void  for  want 
of  jurisdiction  of  the  commissioner  to  make  it,  he  is  not  estopped  to  claim  that 
the  patent  was  in  force  for  the  full  term  of  its  life  as  originally  fixed.81 

b.  Identity  of  Invention.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  patents  be  identical  in 
all  particulars,  or  that  the  inventions  disclosed  therein  be  identical,  since  it  is 
sufficient  if  upon  examination  of  the  two  instruments  it  appears  that  substantially 
the  same  thing  is  intended  to  be  covered  thereby.82  A  difference  in  mere  detail 
does  not  avoid  identity,83  unless  such  difference  affects  the  essence  of  the  inven- 
tion in  a  patentable  sense.84  And  a  foreign  patent  and  a  subsequent  American 
patent  are  not  for  different  inventions  because  the  latter  contains  a  more  genuine 
claim,  which  covers  the  specific  form  of  device  described  in  the  former,  and  other 


[affirmed  in  28  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  608] ;   Barter 
v.  Howland,  26  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)   135. 

74.  Gramme  Electrical  Co.  v.  Arnoux,  etc., 
Electrical  Co.,  17  Fed.  838,  21  Blatchf.  450. 

Act  March  3,  1903  (32  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  1225 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.  Suppl.  (1905)  p.  663])  is 
not  retroactive  to  revive  an  expired  patent. 
Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  133  Fed. 
238  [affirmed  in  143  Fed.  976,  75  C.  C.  A. 
162]. 

75.  Hobbs  v.  Beach,  180  U.  S.  363,  21  S.  Ct. 
409,  45  L.  ed.  586  [affirming  92  Fed.  146,  34 
C.  C.  A.  248] ;   United  Shoe  Mach.,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Duplessis  Shoe  Mach.   Co.,   155   Fed.   842, 
84  C.  C.  A.  76;   Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v.  Car- 
penter,   133  Fed.   238    [affirmed  in    143    Fed. 
976,  75  C.  C.  A.  162] ;  Willcox,  etc.,  Sewing 
Mach.   Co.  v.   Industrial   Mfg.   Co.,    110  Fed. 
210   [reversed  on  other  grounds  in   112  Fed. 
535,   50  C.  C.   A.   387];    Beach  v.  Hobbs,  82 
Fed.  916;  Edison  Electric  Ligh't  Co.  v.  U.  S. 
Electric  Lighting  Co.,  35  Fed.  134;  Kendrick 
v.  Emmons,    14  Fed.  Cas.  No.   7,695,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  208,  9  Off.  Gaz.  201. 

76.  Hobbs  v.  Beach,  180  U.  S.  383,  21  S.  Ct. 
409,  45  L.  ed.  586. 

77.  SocigtS  Anonyme,  etc.  v.  General  Elec- 
tric Co.,  97  Fed.  604. 

78.  Bate   Refrigerating   Co.   v.   Gillett,   20 

79.  Atlas  Glass  Co.  v.  Simonds  Mfg.  Co., 
102  Fed.  643,  42  C.  C.  A.  554  [affirming  102 
Fed.  338]. 

80.  Bate   Refrigerating    Co.    v.    Hammond, 
129  U.  S.   151,  9  S.  Ct.  225,  32  L.  ed.  645; 
O'Reilly  v.  Morse,    15  How.    (U.  S.)    62,   14 

[VII,  A,  4,  a] 


L.  ed.  601 ;  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  U.  S. 
Electric  Lighting  Co.,  52  Fed.  300,  3  C.  C.  A. 
83;  American  Paper  Barrel  Co.  v.  Laraway, 
28  Fed.  141;  Canan  v.  Pound  Mfg.  Co.,  23 
Fed.  185,  23  Blatchf.  173.  Contra,  Smith  v. 
Ely,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,043,  5  McLean  76, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  339. 

81.  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Blooming- 
dale,  65  Fed.  212;   Edison  Electric  Light  Co. 
v.  U.  S.  Electric  Lighting  Co.,  52  Fed.  300, 
3  C.  C.  A.  83. 

82.  Commercial  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fairbank  Can- 
ning Co.,   135  U.  S.    176,    10   S.   Ct.   718,   34 
L.   ed.    88;    Bate   Refrigerating   Co.   v.   Ham- 
mond, 129  U.  S.  151,  9  S.  Ct.  225,  32  L.  ed. 
645;  Guarantee  Ins.  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sellers, 
123  U.  S.  276,  8  S.  Ct.   117,  31  L.  ed.   153; 
Plummer  v.  Sargent,  120  U.  S.  442,  7  S.  Ct. 
640,  30  L.  ed.   737;    United   Shoe   Mach.  Co. 
v.   Duplessis   Shoe   Mach.   Co.,    148    Fed.   31; 
Aquarama  Co.  v.  Old  Mill  Co.,  124  Fed.  229; 
Atlas    Glass    Co.    v.    Simonds   Mfg.    Co.,    102 
Fed.  338  [affirmed  in  102  Fed.  643,  42  C.  C.  A. 
554];  J.  L.  Mott  Iron  Works  v.  Henry  Mc- 
Shane   Mfg.    Co.,    80  Fed.   516;    Accumulator 
Co.  v.  Julien  Electric  Co.,  57  Fed.  605 ;  Clark 
v.  Wilson,  28  Fed.  95;   Brush  Electric  Co.  v. 
Electric  Accumulator   Co.,  56   Off.  Gaz.    1334 
[affirmed  in  61  Off.  Gaz.  886]. 

Patent  is  limited,  although  one  is  for  proc- 
ess and  the  other  for  product.  Accumulator 
Co.  v.  Julien  Electric  Co.,  57  Fed.  605. 

83.  Thomson-Houston   Electric   Co.    v.   Mc- 
Lean, 153  Fed.  883,  82  C.  C.  A.  629. 

84.  Thomson-Houston   Electric   Co.   v.   Mc- 
Lean, 153  Fed.  883,  82  C.  C.  A.  629. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     917 


forms  as  well.85  But  a  prior  patent  in  a  foreign  country  for  a  minor  part  of  a 
broad  or  basic  invention  is  not  for  the  same  invention  as  a  subsequent  United 
States  patent  covering  both  the  minor  parts  and  the  broad  main  invention.86 
When  American  letters  patent  are  issued  covering  the  same  invention  described 
in  foreign  letters  patent  of  an  earlier  date,  the  life  of  the  American  patent  is  not 
prolonged  by  the  fact  that  it  also  covers  improvements  upon  the  invention  as 
patented  in  a  foreign  country.87  It  is  necessary  that  the  foreign  patent  claim  the 
same  invention  ;  it  is  not  sufficient  that  it  disclose  the  invention  of  the  later 
United  States  patent,  where  it  is  not  claimed  therein.88 

e.  Date  of  Foreign  Patent.  To  limit  a  United  States  patent  the  foreign 
patent  must  have  been  actually  sealed  and  issued  before  the  date  of  the  United 
States  patent,  and  the  antedating  of  a  foreign  patent  will  not  make  it  limit  a 
patent  here  which  was  actually  granted  first.8^  l)ates  of  actual  issue  and  not  the 
dates  of  application  control.90 

d.  Term  of  Foreign  Patent.     The  term  of  a  foreign  patent  is  the  time  which 
the  patentee  may  as  a  matter  of  right  keep  it  in  force  under  the  law  of  the 
country.91     It  includes  not  merely  the  term  mentioned  in  the  grant,  but  any 
extension  thereof  which  may  be  procured  at  the  option  of  the  patentee,  and  it  is 
immaterial  whether  or  not  such  extension  is  actually  procured.92     The  judgment 
of  the  courts  of  the  foreign  country  as  to  the  meaning  of  its  laws  and  the  term 
of  the  patents  is  controlling.93 

e.  Lapse  or  Expiration  of    Foreign  Patent.     Where,  at  the  time  that  the 
United  States  patent  is  granted,  a  foreign  patent  is  in  force,  granted  for  a  certain 
term,  and  that  patent  subsequently  lapses  through  failure  to  pay  fees  or  taxes  or 
for  similar  cause,  the  United  States  patent  does  not  lapse  with  the  foreign  patent, 


85.  Sawyer   Spindle  Co.  v.  Carpenter,   133 
Fed.  238  [affirmed  in  143  Fed.  976,  75  C.  C.  A. 
162].     And    see    Accumulator    Co.    v.    Julien 
Electric  Co.,  57  Fed.  605. 

86.  Victor  Talking  Mach.  Co.  v.  Leeds,  etc., 
Co.,   146  Fed.  534    [affirmed  without  opinion 
in  148  Fed.  1022,  79  C.  C.  A.  536]. 

87.  Guarantee  Ins.  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sel- 
lers,  123   U.   S.  276,  8   S.  Ct.  117,  31  L.  ed. 
153. 

88.  Westinghouse     Electric,     etc.,     Co.     v. 
Stanley    Instrument    Co.,    138    Fed.    823,    71 
C.  C.  A.  189;  Holmes  Electric  Protective  Co. 
v.    Metropolitan    Burglar    Co.,    22    Fed.    341. 
Contra,    Westinghouse    Electric,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Stanley    Instrument    Co.,    138    Fed.    823,    71 
C.  C.  A.   189;    Western  Electric  Co.  v.   Citi- 
zens' Tel.  Co.,  106  Fed.  215. 

89.  Bate    Refrigerating   Co.    v.    Sulzberger, 
157   U.   S.   1,   15   S.   Ct.   508,   39  L.   ed.  601; 
Elizabeth   v.    American    Nicholson    Pavement 
Co.,   9-7    U.    S.    126,   24  L.   ed.    1000;    Edison 
Electric    Light    Co.    v.   Waring   Electric    Co., 
59    Fed.    358    [affirmed   in    69    Fed.    645,    15 
C.    C.    A.    700];    American    Bell   Tel.    Co.   i?. 
Cushman,  57  Fed.  842;  Holmes  Burglar  Alarm 
Tel.   Co.  v.  Domestic  Tel.,  etc.,   Co.,  42  Fed. 
220;  Seibert  Cylinder  Oil  Cup  Co.  v.  William 
Powell  Co.,  35  Fed.  591;  Emerson  v.  Lippert, 
31    Fed.    911;    Gold,    etc.,    Tel.    Co.   v.    Com- 
mercial   Tel.    Co.,    23   Fed.    340,    23    Blatchf. 
199. 

In  Canada  the  foreign  patent  must  be  in 
existence  when  the  Canadian  patent  is 
granted.  Ontario  Gen.  Engineering  Co.  v.  Do- 
minion Cotton  Mills  Co.,  31  Can.  Sup.  Ct. 
75;  Auer  Incandescent  Light  Mfg.  Co.  v. 


Dreschel,   6    Can.    Exch.    55    [affirmed  in    28 
Can.  Sup.  Ct.  608]. 

90.  Bate   Refrigerating   Co.   v.    Sulzberger, 
157   U.   S.   1,   15   S.  Ct.   508,   39  L.  ed.  601; 
Accumulator  Co.  v.  Julien  Co.,  57  Fed.  605; 
Edison  Electric   Light   Co.  v.   U.   S.  Electric 
Lighting  Co.,  35  Fed.  134 ;  Bate  Refrigerating 
Co.  v.  Gillett,  13  Fed.  553,  31  Fed.  809. 

91.  Pohl  v.  Anchor  Brewing  Co.,  134  U.  S. 
381,   10  S.  Ct.  577,  33  L.  ed.  953;    Bate  Re- 
frigerating Co.  v.  Hammond,   129  U.  S.  151, 
9  S.  Ct.  225,  32  L.  ed.  645;   Atlas  Glass  Co. 
v.  Simonds  Mfg.  Co.,  102  Fed.  338   [affirmed 
in  102  Fed.  643,  42  C.  C.  A.  554];   Bonsack 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Smith,  70  Fed.  383 ;  Consolidated 
Roller  Mill  Co.  v.  Walker,  43  Fed.  575    [af- 
firmed in   138   U.   S.    124,   11   S.   Ct.  292,  34 
L.  ed.  920].      See  also  Edison  Electric  Light 
Co.  v.   Perkins   Electric  Lamp   Co.,    42   Fed. 
327. 

92.  Bate    Refrigerating    Co.    v.    Hammond, 
129  U.   S.   151,  9  S.  Ct.  225,  32  L.  ed.  645; 
Edison   Electric  Light  Co.   v.  U.   S.   Electric 
Lighting   Co.,   52   Fed.    300,   3   C.   C.   A.   83. 
Contra,    Gramme    Electrical    Co.  •  v.    Arnoux, 
etc.,    Electric   Co.,    17    Fed.    838,    21    Blatchf. 
450;    Bate    Refrigerating    Co.    v.    Gillett,    13 
Fed.  553;   Henry  v.  Providence  Tool  Co.,   11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,384,  3  Ban.  &  A.  501;  Reiss- 
ner  v.  Sharp,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,689,  4  Ban. 
&  A.  366,  16  Blatchf.  383. 

Extension  under  subsequent  law  will  not 
avoid.  Accumulator  Co.  v.  Julien  Electric 
Co.,  57  Fed.  605. 

93.  Consolidated  Roller  Mill  Co.  v.  Walker, 
43  Fed.  575    [affirmed  in  136  U.   S.    124,   11 
S.  Ct.  292,  34  L.  ed.  920]. 

[VII,  A,  4,  e] 


918     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


but  extends  throughout  the  original  term  of  the  foreign  patent.94  The  life  of  a 
United  States  patent  must  be  certain  from  the  day  of  the  grant.95  Where  the 
foreign  patent'expired  or  lapsed  for  any  cause  before  the  grant  of  the  United 
States  patent,  the  United  States  patent  is  void.96 

B.  Extensions.97  There  is  no  general  act  of  congress  permitting  the  exten- 
sion of  patents,  and  therefore  patents  can  now  be  extended  only  by  special  acts  of 
congress.98  Congress,  however,  as  is  shown  by  a  very  considerable  number  of 


94.  Pohl  v.  Anchor  Brewing  Co.,  134  U.  S. 
381,    10   S.    Ct.    577,   33   L.   ed.   593;    Victor 
Talking   Mach.    Co.    v.   Leeds,   etc.,    Co.,    146 
Fed.    534    [affirmed   without   opinion    in    148 
Fed.  1022,  79-  C.  C.  A.  536]  j  Welsbach  Light 
Co.  v.  Apollo  Incandescent  Gaslight  Co.,  96 
Fed.  332,  37  C.  C.  A.  508;   Diamond  Match 
Co.  v.  Adirondack  Match  Co.,  65  Fed.   803; 
Pohl   v.    Heyman,    58   Fed.   568;    Paillard   v. 
Bruno,    29    Fed.   864;    Holmes    Electric   Pro- 
tective   Co.    v.   Metropolitan   Burglar    Alarm 
Co.,  21  Fed.  458. 

95.  Huber  v.  N.  0.  Nelson  Mfg.  Co.,   148 
U.  S.  270,  13  S.  Ct.  603,  37  L.  ed.  447;  Bate 
Refrigerating    Co.    v.    Gillett,    40    Off.    Gaz. 
1029;    Paillard  v.  Bruno,   38   Off.   Gaz.   900; 
Henry  v.  Providence  Tool   Co.,   14   Off.   Gaz. 
855.     Where  foreign  patent  lapsed  after  the 
application  in  the  United  States,  the  United 
States   patent  is  valid.    Welsbach  Light  Co. 
v.  Apollo  Incandescent  Gaslight  Co.,  96  Fed. 
332,  37  C.  C.  A.  508. 

96.  Huber  v.  N.  O.  Nelson  Mfg.  Co.,  148 
U.  S.  270,  13  S.  Ct.  603,  37  L.  ed.  447. 

97.  Extension  of  reissued  patent  see  infra, 
VIII,  F. 

98.  Act  1861   (12  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  249)  pro- 
hibited extensions.   Guarantee  Ins.  Trust,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Sellers,  123  U.  S.  276,  8  S.  Ct.  117,  31 
L.  ed.  153. 

Extension  by  treaty.— The  term  of  a  pat- 
ent granted  by  the  United  States  to  a  citizen 
thereof  cannot  be  extended  by  a  treaty.  United 
Shoe  Mach.  Co.  v.  Duplessis  Shoe  Mach.  Co., 
148  Fed.  31  [affirmed  in  155  Fed.  842,  84 
C.  C.  A.  76]. 

In  England  the  crown  may  extend  patents 
(In  re  Parsons,  [1898]  A.  C.  673,  67  L.  J. 
P.  C.  55;  Matter  of  Brandon,  9  App.  Cas. 
589,  53  L.  J.  P.  C.  84;  In  re  Betts,  9  Jur. 
N.  S.  137,  7  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  577,  1  Moore 
P.  C.  N.  S.  49,  1  New  Rep.  137,  11  Wkly. 
Rep.  221,  15  Eng.  Reprint  621;  Ledsam  v. 
Russell,  1  H.  L.  Cas.  687,  9  Eng.  Reprint  931); 
and  may  extend  the  time  even  after  expira- 
tion hearing  on  petition  prior  thereto  (Led- 
sam v.  Russell,  1  H.  L.  Cas.  687,  9  Eng. 
Reprint  931;  Re  Bodmer,  2  Moore  P.  C.  471, 
12  Eng.  Reprint  1085).  The  assignees  may 
secure  extension  (Russell  v.  Ledsam,  9  Jur. 
557,  14  L.  J.  Exch.  353,  14  M.  &  W.  574 
[affirmed  in  16  L.  J.  Exch.  145,  16  M.  &  W. 
633  (affirmed  in  1  H.  L.  Cas.  687,  9  Eng. 
Reprint  931)  ] ;  In  re  Napier,  13  Moore,  P  .C. 
543,  9  Wkly.  Rep.  390,  15  Eng.  Reprint  204), 
but  their  claims  are  not  viewed  so  favorably 
(In  re  Hopkinson,  [1897]  A.  C.  249,  66  L.  J. 
P.  C.  38,  75  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  462;  In  re 
Normand,  L.  R.  3  P.  C.  193,  6  Moore  P.  C. 
N.  S.  477,  17  Eng.  Reprint  805;  In  re  Norton, 
9  Jur.  N.  S.  419,  1  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  339, 
[VII,  A,  4,  e] 


1  New  Rep.  557,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  720,  15  Eng. 
Reprint  729).  An  importer  from  abroad  may 
secure  extension,  but  is  not  looked  upon 
favorably.  In  re  Johnson's  Patent,  L.  R.  4 
P.  C.  75,  8  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  282,  17  Eng. 
Reprint  318;  In  re  Newton,  14  Moore  P.  C. 
156,  10  Wkly.  Rep.  731,  15  Eng.  Reprint  265; 
In  re  Claridge,  7  Moore  P.  C.  394,  13  Eng. 
Reprint  932.  An  extension  will  be  re- 
fused where  clearly  invalid.  In  re  Blake, 
L.  R.  4  P.  C.  535,  9  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  373, 
17  Eng.  Reprint  554;  Re  Hill,  9  Jur.  N.  S. 
1209,  9  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  101,  1  Moore  P.  C. 
N.  S.  258,  12  Wkly.  Rep.  25,  15  Eng.  Reprint 
698;  In  re  Bett,  9  Jur.  N.  S.  137,  7  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  877,  1  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  49,  1 
New  Rep.  137,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  221,  15 
Eng.  Reprint  621.  An  extension  may  be 
granted  on  conditions.  In  re  Mallet,  L.  R. 
1  P.  C.  308;  Ledsam  v.  Russell,  1  H.  L.  Cas. 
687,  9  Eng.  Reprint  931;  In  re  Bodmer,  8 
Moore  P.  C.  282,  14  Eng.  Reprint  108;  Bax- 
ter's Patent,  13  Jur.  593.  Invention  must 
have  merit  and  public  utility  and  the  pat- 
entee must  have  been  sufficiently  remunerated. 
In  re  McDougal,  L.  R.  2  P.  C.  1,  37  L.  J. 
P.  C.  17,  5  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  1,  16  Eng. 
Reprint  415;  In  re  Pinkus,  12  Jur.  233;  In 
re  Bell,  10  Jur.  363;  In  re  Heath,  8  Moore 
P.  C.  217,  14  Eng.  Reprint  83;  In  re  Smith, 
7  Moore  P.  C.  133,  13  Eng.  Reprint  830; 
Re  Russell,  2  Moore  P.  C.  496,  12  Eng.  Re- 
print 1095.  Petition  for  extension  must 
state  everything  fully  and  fairly  and  must 
include  complete  account  of  profits.  In  re 
Wuterich,  [1903]  A.  C.  206,  72  L.  J.  P.  C. 
60,  88  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  306;  In  re  Peach, 
[1902]  A.  C.  414,  71  L.  J.  P.  C.  98,  87  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  153;  In  re  Johnson,  L.  R.  5  P.  C. 
87;  In  re  Wield,  L.  R.  4  P.  C.  89,  8  Moore 
P.  C.  N.  S.  300,  17  Eng.  Reprint  325;  In  re 
Pitman,  L.  R.  4  P.  C.  84,  8  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S. 
293,  17  Eng.  Reprint  322;  In  re  Clark,  L.  R. 
3  P.  C.  421,  7  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  255,  17 
Eng.  Reprint  97;  In  re  Bett,  9  Jur.  N.  S. 
137,  7  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  577,  1  Moore  P.  C. 
N.  S.  49,  1  New  Rep.  137,  11  Wkly.  Rep. 
221,  15  Eng.  Reprint  621;  In  re  Markwick, 
13  Moore  P.  C.  310,  8  Wkly.  Rep.  333,  15 
Eng.  Reprint  116.  Expenses,  etc.,  must  be 
deducted  in  estimating  profits  (In  re  Carr, 
L.  R.  4  P.  C.  539,  9  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  379, 
17  Eng.  Reprint  556;  In  re  Poole,  L.  R.  1 
P.  C.  514;  Matter  of  Galloway,  7  Jur.  453; 
In  re  Newton,  14  Moore  P.  C.  156,  10  Wkly. 
Rep.  731,  15  Eng.  Reprint  265)  ;  and  failure 
of  profits  must  be  shown  not  to  be  due  to 
failure  to  make  proper  efforts  (In  re  Thorny- 
croft,  [1899]  A.  C.  415,  68  L.  J.  P.  C.  68; 
In  re  Patterson,  13  Jur.  593,  6  Moore  P.  C. 
469,  13  Eng.  Reprint  765;  In  re  Norton,  9  Jur. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     919 


decisions,  has  authority  to  extend  the  term  of  patents  either  by  general  law  or 
special  act." 

VIII.  REISSUES.1 

A.  In  General  —  1.  DEFINITION.  A  reissued  patent  is  in  effect  an  amendment 
of  the  original  patent  made  to  cure  some  defect  or  insufficiency  in  the  original ; 2 
a  patent  which  merely  secures  the  patent  rights  more  definitely  in  some  particular 
wherein  the  original  patent  was  defective.3 

2.  POWER  TO  REISSUE  AND  GROUNDS.  The  statutes  of  the  United  States  author- 
ize a  reissue  of  a  patent  where  the  original  is  inoperative  or  invalid  by  reason  of 
a  defective  or  insufficient  specification,  or  by  reason  of  the  patentee's  claiming  as 
his  own  invention  or  discovery  more  than  he  has  a  right  to  claim  as  new,  provided 
the  error  arose  by  inadvertence,  accident,  or  mistake  and  without  any  fraudulent 
or  deceptive  intent.4  The  statute  is  mandatory  and  gives  the  commissioner  no  dis- 


N.  S.  419,  1  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  339,  1  New  Rep. 
557,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  720,  15  Eng.  Reprint  729'). 
An  extension  will  be  refused  where  not  suffi- 
ciently useful  (In  re  Allan,  L.  R.  1  P.  C. 
507;  In  re  Herbert,  L.  R.  1  P.  C.  39-9;  Matter 
of  Simister,  7  Jur.  451,  4  Moore  P.  C.  164, 
13  Eng.  Reprint  264),  and  time  of  filing  pe- 
tition for  extension  must  be  considered  (In 
re  Marshall,  [1891]  A.  C.  430;  In  re  Jabloch- 
koff,  [1891]  A.  C.  293,  60  L.  J.  P.  C.  61,  65 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  5;  Matter  of  Brandon,  9 
App.  Cas.  589,  53  L.  J.  P.  C.  84;  In  re 
Hutchison,  14  Moore  P.  C.  364,  15  Eng.  Re- 
print 343 ) .  Any  one  filing  caveat  may  oppose 
extension  (In  re  Schlumberger,  2  Eq.  Rep. 
36,  9  Moore  P.  C.  1,  14  Eng.  Reprint  197; 
In  re  Lowe,  8  Moore  P.  C.  1,  14  Eng.  Re- 
print 1 1  In  re  Smith,  7  Moore  P.  C.  133,  13 
Eng.  Reprint  830;  Re  Woodcroft,  3  Moore 
P.  C.  171,  13  Eng.  Reprint  72),  and  an  ob- 
jection to  extension  should  state  grounds  but 
not  necessarily  particulars  (In  re  Ball,  4 
App.  Cas.  171,  48  L.  J.  P.  C.  24,  27  Wkly. 
Rep.  477 ) .  Costs  are  allowed  on  opposition 
to  extension.  In  re  Wield,  L.  R.  4  P.  C.  89, 

8  Moore  P.  C.  N.  S.  300,  17  Eng.  Reprint  325; 
In  re  Johnson,  L.  R.  4  P.  C.  75,  8  Moore  P.  C. 
N.  S.  282,  17    Eng.  Reprint  318;  In  re  Jones, 

9  Moore  P.  C.  41,  14  Eng.  Reprint,  213;  In  re 
Milner,  9  Moore  P.  C.   39,    14  Eng.  Reprint 
212. 

99.  Wilson  v.  Rousseau,  4  How.  (U.  S.) 
646,  11  L.  ed.  1141;  New  American  File  Co. 
v.  Nicholson  File  Co.,  8  Fed.  816;  Blanchard 
v.  Sprague,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,518,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  734,  742,  2  Story  164,  3  Sumn.  535; 
Blanchard's  Gun-Stock  Turning  Factory  v. 
Warner,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,521,  1  Blatchf.  258, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  184;  Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  3 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,559,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  376,  5 
McLean  158;  Brooks  v.  Jenkins,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,953,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  41,  3  McLean  432; 
Evans  v.  Robinson,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,571, 
Brunn.  Col.  Cas.  400;  Gibson  v.  Gifford,  10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,395,  1  Blatchf.  529,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  366;  Gibson  v.  Harris,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,396,  1  Blatchf.  167,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  115; 
Jordan  v.  Dobson,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,519,  2 
Abb.  398,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  232,  7  Phila.  (Pa.) 
533;  Potter  «.  Braunsdorf,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,321,  7  Blatchf.  9-7;  Washburn  v.  Gould,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,214,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  206, 


3  Story  122;  Woodworth  v.  Hall,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   18,016,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  495,   1  Woodb. 
&  M.  248;    Woodworth  v.  Sherman,  30  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    18,019,    2   Robb   Pat.    Cas.    257,   3 
Story  171. 

1.  Correction  or  amendment  of  original  pat- 
ent see  supra,  VI,  C. 

Extension  of  original  patent  see  supra,  VII, 
B. 

2.  Lattig  v.  Dean,  25  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
591;  McBurney  v.  Goodyear,  11  Cush.  (Mass.) 
569;  Dobson  v.  Lees,  137  U.  S.  258,  11  S.  Ct. 
71,  34  L.  ed.  652;  Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Pet. 
(U.  S.)    218,  8  L.  ed.  376;   Shaw  v.  Colwell 
Lead    Co.,    11    Fed.    711,    20    Blatchf.    417; 
Crompton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,406,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536. 

Either  the  specification  or  claim  may  be 
amended.  Battin  v.  Taggert,  17  How.  (U.  S.) 
74,  15  L.  ed.  37;  Hart,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Anchor  Electric  Co.,  92  Fed.  657,  34  C.  C.  A. 
606. 

3.  Ingersoll  v.  Holt,  104  Fed.  682. 

4.  U.   S.   Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4916    [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3393];  Sewing-Mach.  Co. 
v.  Frame,  24  Fed.  596;  Gold,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Wiley,  17  Fed.  234;   Hailes  v.  Albany  Stove 
Co.,  16  Fed.  240,  21  Blatchf.  271;  Woven-Wire 
Mattress  Co.  v.  Wire-Web  Bed  Co.,  8  Fed.  87; 
Smith    v.   Merriam,    6    Fed.    713;    Wilson   v. 
Coon,    6    Fed.    611,    18    Blatchf.    532;    Giant 
Powder  Co.  v.  California  Vigorit  Powder  Co., 

4  Fed.    720,    6    Sawy.    508;    Atlantic    Giant- 
Powder  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  623, 
3  Ban.  &  A.   161,   13  Off.  Gaz.  45;   Badische 
Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Higgin,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
722,   3   Ban.   &  A.    462,    15   Blatchf.   290,    14 
Off.   Gaz.  414;   Ex  p.  Ball,   2   Fed.  Cas.  No. 
810;    Dyson    v.    Gambrill,    8    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
4,230;   Knight  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   14 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    7,882,    3    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    1, 
Taney  106;  Stevens  v.  Pritchard,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,407,  2  Ban.  &  A.  390,  4  Cliff.  417,  10 
Off.  Gaz.  505 ;  Tucker  v.  Tucker  Mfg.  Co.,  24 
Fed.    Cas.   No.    14,227,    2    Ban.    &  A.   401,   4 
Cliff.  397,  10  Off.  Gaz.  464;  Wells  v.  Jacques, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,398,   1  Ban.  &  A.  60,  5 
Off.  Gaz.  364. 

Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  reissue  statute 
the  authority  to  grant  a  reissue  existed. 
Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Pet.  (U.  S.)  218,  8 
L.  ed.  376. 

[VIII,  A,  2] 


920     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


cretion  as  to  cases  within  its  provisions.5  "While  it  is  to  be  construed  liberally 
according  to  its  spirit,6  a  reissue  cannot  be  granted  except  as  provided  therein.7 
To  warrant  a  reissue  it  is  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  bona  fide  mistake  or 
accident  and  not  merely  an  error  in  judgment,8  and  the  patent  must  be  inoperative 
and  invalid.9  Claims  that  are  too  narrow  render  the  patent  inoperative  and  justify 
a  reissue.10  So  where  the  patent  claims  too  much  there  may  be  a  reissue.11  The 
reissue  is  not  invalid  because  the  error  corrected  was  immaterial.12 

3.  PERSONS  ENTITLED  TO  REISSUE.  A  reissue  may  be  granted  to  the  inventor,  "his 
executor  or  administrator,  or  in  case  of  assignment  recorded  in  the  patent  office 
may  be  granted  to  the  assignee.13  Joint  owners  must  all  join  in  a  surrender  for 
reissue  or  ratify  a  reissue,  otherwise  it  is  invalid.14  In  regard  to  reissues  citizens 
and  aliens  have  the  same  rights.15 


In  Canada  the  law  is  like  that  in  the  United 
States.  St.  35  Viet.  c.  26,  §  19.  Defective  or 
inoperative  patent  may  be  amended  by  reissue. 
Auer  Incandescent  Light  Mfg.  Co.  v.  O'Brien, 
5  Can.  Exch.  243;  Hunter  v.  Carrick,  28 
Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  489  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  10  Ont.  App.  449]. 

5.  Ex  p.  Dyson,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,228. 

6.  Ex  p.  Ball,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  810. 

7.  Burr  v.  Duryee,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  531,  17 
L.   ed.   650,   660,    661;    Peoria   Target   Co.   v. 
Cleveland  Target  Co.,  58  Fed.  227,  7  C.  C.  A. 
197;   Child  v.  Adams,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,673, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189,  3  Wall.  Jr.  20. 

8.  In   re   Conklin,    1    MacArthur    (D.    C.) 
375;    Huber  v.   N.   O.   Nelson  Mfg.   Co.,   148 
U.  S.  270,   13  S.  Ct.  603,  37  L.  ed.  447    [af- 
firming 38  Fed.  8301 ;  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Berkshire  Nat.  Bank,  135  U.  S.  342,  10  S.  Ct. 
884,   34  L.  ed.   168;    Yale   Lock  Mfg.   Co.  V. 
James,  125  U.  S.  447,  8  S.  Ct.  967,  31  L.  ed. 
807;    Matthews   v.    Iron-Clad   Mfg.    Co.,    124 
U.  S.  347,  8  S.  Ct.  639-,  31  L.  ed.  477;  Eames 
v.  Andrews,  122  U.  S.  40,  7  S.  Ct.   1073,  30 
L.  ed.  1064;   Coon  v.  Wilson,  113  U.  S.  268, 
5  S.  Ct.  537,  28  L.  ed.  963;  Mahn  v.  Harwood, 
112  U.  S.   354,  5  S.  Ct.   174,  28  L.  ed.  665; 
Miller  v.  Bridgeport  Brass  Co.,  104  U.  S.  350, 
26   L.  ed.    783;    Westinghouse   Electric,    etc., 
Co.  t>.  Stanley  Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  115  Fed.  810; 
American  Soda-Fountain  Co.  v.  Swietusch,  85 
Fed.  968,  29  C.  C.  A.  506 ;  Jenkins  v.  Stetson, 
32    Fed.    398;    Arnheim   v.    Finster,    24   Fed. 
276;  American  Diamond  Drill  Co.  v.  Sullivan 
Mach.  Co.,  21  Fed.  74;  Newton  v.  Furst,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  14  Fed.  465,  11  Biss.  405;  Putnam 
v.   Hutchinson,    12    Fed.    127,   11    Biss.    233; 
Whitehouse   v.    Travelers'   Ins.   Co.,   29   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,566. 

Actual  mistake  shown  see  Hobbs  v.  Beach, 
180  U.  S.  383,  21  S.  Ct.  409,  45  L.  ed.  586; 
Topliff  v.  Topliff,  145  U.  S.  156,  12  S.  Ct.  825, 
36  L.  ed.  658 ;  Peoria  Target  Co.  v.  Cleveland 
Target  Co.,  43  Fed.  922;  National  Spring  Co. 
i?.  Union  Car  Spring  Mfg.  Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,051,  1  Ban.  &  A.  240,  12  Blatchf.  80, 
C  Off.  Gaz.  224;  In  re  Briede,  123  Off.  Gaz. 
322. 

How  shown. —  Mistake  may  be  shown  by 
evidence  outside  of  official  record.  Ex  p. 
Dyson,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,228;  Hussey  v. 
Bradley,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,946,  5  Blatchf. 
134,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  362. 

9.  Burr  v.  Duryee,   1   Wall.    (U.  S.)    531, 
17  L.  ed.  650,  660,  661;   Idealite  Co.  v.  Pro- 

[VIII,  A,  2] 


tection  Light  Co.,  103  Fed.  973;  Giant  Powdsr 
Co.  t?.  California  Powder  Works,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,379,  2  Ban.  &  A.  131,  3  Sawy.  448  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  98  U.  S.  126,  25 
L.  ed.  77] ;  Goodyear  v.  Day,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,566. 

10.  In  re  Briede,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  298, 
123  Off.  Gaz.  322;  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Berk- 
shire Nat.  Bank,  135  U.  S.  342,  10  S.  Ct.  884, 
34  L.  ed.  168;  Mahn  i*.  Harwood,  112  U.  S. 
354,  5  S.  Ct.  174,  28  L.  ed.  665;  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.  «.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  25  Fed. 
30;  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Safety  Nitro  Powder 
Co.,   19  Fed.  509;   Welling  v.  Rubber-Coated 
Harness    Trimming    Co.,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,383,  2  Ban.  &  A.  1. 

11.  Hubel  v.  Dick,  28  Fed.  656;  Mathews 
v.  Flower,  25  Fed.  830;  Dorsey  Harvester  Re- 
volving-Rake Co.  v.  Marsh,   7   Fed.   Cas.  No. 
4,014,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  387,  9  Phila.    (Pa.) 
395;    Knight   v.   Baltimore,   etc.,   R.    Co.,    14 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    7,882,    3    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    1, 
Taney  106;  Treadwell  v.  Bladen,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   14,154,    1   Robb  Pat.   Cas.   531,   4  Wash. 
703. 

12.  Hobbs    v.    Beach,    180    U.    S.    383,    21 
S.  Ct.  409,  45  L.  ed.  586;   Thomson-Houston 
Electric  Co.  v.  Black  River  Traction  Co.,  135 
Fed.  759,  68  C.  C.  A.  461;  Buerk  v.  Valentine, 
4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,109,  9-  Blatchf.  479,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  366,  2  Off.  Gaz.  295. 

13.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §§   4895,  4916 
[U.   S.   Comp.   St.    (1901)    pp.    3393,   3385]; 
Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic   Fabric   Co..  5   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,397,  3  Cliff.  356,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
90,  1  Off.  Gaz.  91;  Potter  u.  Holland,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,329,  4  Blatchf.  206,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  327;   Smith  v.  Mercer,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,078,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  529 ;  Wing  v.  Warren,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,871,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  548, 
2  Off.  Gaz.  342. 

Assignee  may  secure  reissue  in  his  own 
name  and  for  his  own  benefit  without  consent 
of  inventor.  Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabric 
Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,398,  Holmes  45 ;  Swift 
v.  Whisen,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,700,  2  Bond 
115,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343. 

14.  Dental   Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Wetherbee,  7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,810,  2  Cliff.  555,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  87;  Potter  v.  Holland,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,329,  4  Blatchf.  206,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  327; 
Woodworth  v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,021, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  296,  3  Story  749. 

15.  Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet.    (U.  S.)    292, 
8  L.  ed.  689. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     921 


4.  TERM.  The  reissue  is  granted  for  the  unexpired  part  of  the  term  of  the 
original  patent.16 

B.  Time  FOP  Application  —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  Application  for  reissue  should 
be  made  with  promptness,17  and  while  the  length  of  delay  which  is  permissible 
depends  on  the  circumstances  of  the  particular  case,18  it  has  been  said  that  where 
claims  are  broadened  a  delay  of  two  years  will  ordinarily  be  regarded  as  too  long 
unless  excuse  is  shown  therefor.19 

2.  INTERVENING  RIGHTS  OF  THIRD  PERSONS.  Where  a  reissue  is  sought  merely 
to  expand  the  claims  of  a  patent,  so  as  to  embrace  structures  or  devices  brought 
into  use  since  the  issuance  of  the  original,  and  which  were  not  infringements  of 
the  claim  of  the  original,  there  being  no  proof  of  mistake  or  inadvertence,  the  right 
to  a  reissue  is  lost  by  unreasonable  delay,  and  the  reissue,  being  made,  is  void.20 


16.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4916   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3393];  Gibson  v.  Harris, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,396,  1  Blatchf.  167,  Fish. 
Pat.  Eep.  115;  Morris  v.  Huntington,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9-,831,  1  Paine  348,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
448 ;  Woodworth  v.  Edwards,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,014,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  610,  3  Woodb.  &  M. 
120. 

17.  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Berkshire  Nat. 
Bank,  135  U.  S.  342,  10  S.  Ct.  884,  34  L.  ed. 
168;    Hartshorn   v.   Saginaw  Barrel   Co.,   119 
U.  S.  664,  7  S.  Ct.  421,  30  L.  ed.  539;  Wollen- 
sak  v.  Reiher,  115  U.  S.  96,  5  S.  Ct.  1137,  29 
L.  ed.  350;  Mahn  v.  Harwood,  112  U.  S.  354, 
5  S.  Ct.  174,  28  L.  ed.  665;  Thomson-Houston 
Electric  Co.  v.  Sterling-Meaker  Co.,  150  Fed. 
589;  Milloy  Electric  Co.  v.  Thompson-Hous- 
ton Electric  Co.,   148  Fed.   843,   78  C.   C.  A. 
533 ;  Pelzer  v.  Meyberg,  97  Fed.  969 ;  Shirley  v. 
Mayer,  25  Fed.  38,  23  Blatchf.  249;  Western 
Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  25 
Fed.    30;    Ives   V.   Sargent,    17    Fed.    447,  21 
Blatchf.  417 ;   Pope  Mfg.   Co.   v.  Marqua,   15 
Fed.    400;    Jones    v.    Barker,    11    Fed.    597; 
Kidder  v.  Smart  Mfg.  Co.,  8  Ont.  362. 

18.  Wilson  v.  Rousseau,  4  How.    (U.   S.) 
646,  11  L.  ed.  1141;   Western  Union  Tel.  Co. 
v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  25  Fed.  30;  Odell 
v.  Stout,  22  Fed.  159;  Stutz  v.  Armstrong,  20 
Fed.  843. 

For  facts  showing  unreasonable  delay  see 
In  re  Starkey,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  519; 
In  re  Messinger,  12  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  532; 
Eby  v.  King,  158  U.  S.  366,  15  S.  Ct.  972,  39 
L.  ed.  1018;  Wollensak  v.  Sargent,  151  U.  S. 
221,  14  S.  Ct.  291,  38  L.  ed.  137;  Leggett  v. 
Standard  Oil  Co.,  149  U.  S.  287,  13  S.  Ct.  902, 
37  L.  ed.  737;  Electric  Gas-Lighting  Co.  v. 
Boston  Electric  Co.,  139  U.  S.  481,  11  S.  Ct. 
586,  35  L.  ed.  250;  Hartshorn  v.  Saginaw 
Barrel  Co.,  119-  U.  S.  664,  7  S.  Ct.  421,  30 
L.  ed.  539;  White  v.  Dunbar,  119  U.  S.  47, 
7  S.  Ct.  72,  30  L.  ed.  303;  Gardner  v.  Herz, 
118  U.  S.  180,  6  S.  Ct.  1027,  30  L.  ed.  158; 
Thomson  v.  Wooster,  114  U.  S.  104,  5  S.  Ct. 
788,  29  L.  ed.  105;  Torrent,  etc.,  Lumber  Co. 
v.  Rodgers,  112  U.  S.  659,  5  S.  Ct.  501,  28 
L.  ed.  842;  Mahn  v.  Harwood,  112  U.  S.  354, 
5  S.  Ct.  174,  6  S.  Ct.  451,  28  L.  ed.  665; 
Johnson  v.  Flushing,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  U.  S. 
539,  26  L.  ed.  1162;  Bantz  v.  Frantz,  105 
U.  S.  160,  26  L.  ed.  1013;  Matthews  v.  Bos- 
ton Mach.  Co.,  105  U.  S.  54,  26  L.  ed.  1022; 
Miller  v.  Bridgeport  Brass  Co.,  104  U.  S. 
350,  26  L.  ed.  783;  United  Blue-Flame  Oil 


Stove  Co.  v.  Glazier,  119  Fed.  157,  55  C.  C.  A. 
553;  Troy  Laundry  Mach.  Co.  v.  Adams  Laun- 
dry Mach.  Co.,  112  Fed.  437;  Pfenninger  v. 
Heubner,  99  Fed.  440;  Horn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Pelzer,  91  Fed.  665,  34  C.  C.  A.  45;  Mast  v. 
Iowa  Windmill,  etc.,  Co.,  76  Fed.  816,  22 
C.  C.  A.  586;  Philadelphia  Novelty  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Rouss,  39  Fed.  273;  Wollensak  v.  Sargent, 
33  Fed.  840;  Shickle,  etc.,  Iron  Co.  v.  South 
St.  Louis  Foundry  Co.,  29  Fed.  866;  Curran 
v.  St.  Louis  Refrigerator,  etc.,  Co.,  29  Fed. 
320;  Hubel  v.  Dick,  28  Fed.  656;  Shirley  v. 
Mayer,  25  Fed.  38,  23  Blatchf.  249;  Tuttle  v. 
Loomis,  24  Fed.  789;  Scrivner  v.  Oakland  Gas 
Co.,  22  Fed.  98,  10  Sawy.  390;  Singer  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Goodrich,  15  Fed.  455;  Sheriff  v.  Fulton, 
12  Fed.  136;  Combined  Patents  Can  Co.  v. 
Lloyd,  11  Fed.  149.  After  a  decision  of  a 
court  of  appeals  declaring  a  patent  void,  the 
owner  cannot  continue  litigation  in  other 
circuits  and  wait  until  the  patent  has  again 
been  declared  void  before  applying  for  a  re- 
issue. Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  West- 
ern Electric  Co.,  158  Fed.  813. 

For  facts  showing  reasonable  diligence  see 
In  re  Briede,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  298,  123 
Off.  Gaz.  322;  In  re  Heroult,  29  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  42;  Featherstone  v.  George  R.  Bid- 
well  Cycle  Co.,  53  Fed.  113;  Russell  v.  Laugh- 
lin,  26  Fed.  699;  In  re  Briede,  123  Off.  Gaz. 
322. 

19.  In  re  Ams,  29  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)   91; 
In     re     Starkey,     21     App.     Cas.     (D.     C.) 
519-;    Topliff   v.    Topliff,    145    U.    S.    156,    12 
S.  Ct.  825,  36  L.  ed.  658;  Wollensak  v.  Reiher, 
115  U.  S.  96,  5  S.  Ct.   1137,  29  L.  ed.  350; 
Mahn  v.  Harwood,  112  U.  S.  354,  5  S.  Ct.  174, 
28  L.  ed.  665;  Asmus  v.  Alden,  27  Fed.  684; 
Phillips  v.  Risser,  26  Fed.  308. 

Application  to  enlarge  monopoly.— Where 
the  reissue  was  obtained,  not  for  the  purpose 
of  correcting  a  mistake,  but  for  the  mere 
purpose  of  enlarging  the  monopoly  of  the 
patent,  it  is  immaterial  that  the  application 
for  reissue  was  made  within  two  years  from 
the  time  of  the  original  grant.  Parker,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Yale  Clock  Co.,  123  U.  S.  87,  8  S.  Ct. 
38,  31  L.  ed.  100;  Coon  v.  Wilson,  113  U.  S. 
268,  5  S.  Ct.  537,  28  L.  ed.  963;  Union  Paper- 
Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Waterbury,  39  Fed.  389; 
Russell  v.  Laughlin,  26  Fed.  699. 

20.  Dunham    v.    Dennison    Mfg.    Co.,    154 
U.  S.  103,  14  S.  Ct.  986,  38  L.  ed.  924   [af- 
firming 40  Fed.    667];    Ives  v.   Sargent,   119 
U.  S.  652,  7  S.  Ct.  436,  30  L.  ed.  544 ;  Newton 

[VIII,  B,  2] 


922     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


Even  if  the  claim  is  technically  narrowed  instead  of  broadened,  a  reissue 
after  long  delay,  during  which  adverse  equities  have  arisen,  cannot  be  sustained, 
when  the  original  patent  did  not  indicate,  or  even  hint  at,  the  invention  of  the 
reissue.21  What  is  not  claimed  in  an  original  patent  is  dedicated  to  the  'public 
unless  the  patent  is  surrendered  and  reissued  within  a  reasonable  time  and  before 
adverse  rights  have  accrued.28  It  will  not  do  for  the  patentee  to  wait  until  other 
inventors  have  produced  new  forms  of  improvement  and  then,  with  the  new 
light  thus  acquired,  under  pretense  of  inadvertence  and  mistake,  apply  for  suck 
an  enlargement  of  his  claim  as  to  make  it  embrace  these  new  forms.23  Such  a 
process  of  expansion  carried  on  indefinitely,  without  regard  to  lapse  of  time, 
would  operate  most  unjustly  against  the  public  and  is  totally  unauthorized  by  the 
law.24  No  matter  how*  valuable  and  meritorious  an  invention  may  be,  a  patentee 
has  no  right,  by  reissuing  his  patent,  to  gradually  widen  the  scope  of  his  claims 
so  as  to  keep  pace  with  the  progress  of  invention.25  But  a  reissued  patent  is  not 
void,  because  the  things  claimed  in  the  original  had  been  in  public  use  in  the 
interval  between  the  original  and  the  reissued  patent.  Such  a  publication  is  not 
an  abandonment  or  dedication.26 

3.  EXCUSES  FOR  DELAY.  The  applicant  may  excuse  delay  in  applying  for  reissue 
by  showing  good  reasons  for  failing  to  make  the  application  sooner.27  The  ques- 
tion whether  delay  is  unreasonable  is  a  matter  of  law  for  the  court.28 


v.  Furst,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  119  U.  S.  373,  7 
S.  Ct.  369,  30  L.  ed.  442;  White  v.  Dunbar, 
119  U.  S.  47,  7  S.  Ct.  72,  30  L.  ed.  303  [re- 
versing 15  Fed.  747,  4  Woods  116];  Brown 
V.  Davis,  116  U.  S.  237,  6  S.  Ct.  379,  29 
L.  ed.  659;  Coon  v.  Wilson,  113  U.  S.  268, 
5  S.  Ct.  537,  28  L.  ed.  963;  Torrent,  etc., 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Rodgers,  112  U.  S.  659,  5  S.  Ct. 
501,  28  L.  ed.  872;  Turner,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Dover  Stamping  Co.,  Ill  U.  S.  319,  4  S.  Ct. 
401,  28  L.  ed.  442;  Clements  v.  Odorless  Ex- 
cavating Apparatus  Co.,  109  U.  S.  641,  3 
S.  Ct.  525,  27  L.  ed.  1060;  Gill  v.  Wells,  22 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  1,  22  L.  ed.  699;  Troy  Laundry 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Adams  Laundry  Mach.  Co.,  112 
Fed.  437;  Horn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Pelzer,  91 
Fed.  665,  34  C.  C.  A.  45;  American  Soda- 
Fountain  Co.  v.  Swietusch,  85  Fed.  968,  29 
C.  C.  A.  506  [affirming  75  Fed.  573];  Mast 
t?.  Iowa  Windmill,  etc.,  Co.,  76  Fed.  816,  22 
C.  C.  A.  586  [affirming  68  Fed.  213] ;  Hubel 
v.  Dick,  28  Fed.  132;  Hudnut  t/.  Lafayette 
Hominy  Mills,  26  Fed.  636 ;  Flower  v.  Detroit, 

22  Fed.  292;  Wooster  v.  Handy,  21  Fed.  51; 
Baltimore  Car- Wheel  Co.  v.  North  Baltimore 
Pass.  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  47;  Turrell  t?.  Bradford, 
15  Fed.  808,  21  Blatchf.  284;  Holt  v.  Keeler, 
13  Fed.  464,  21   Blatchf.  68;   Batten  v.  Tag- 
gert,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,107,  2  Wall.  Jr.  101 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  17  How.  74,  15 
L.  ed.  37] ;   Swain  Turbine,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ladd, 

23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,662,  2  Ban.  &  A.  488,  11 
Off.    Gaz.    153.     See   also   as   sustaining   this 
view   Whitely  v.   Swayne,   29   Fed.   Cas.   No. 
17,568,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  117   [affirmed  in  7 
Wall.  685,  19  L.  ed.   199]. 

One  having  actual,  as  distinguished  from 
constructive,  notice  of  an  original  patent  is 
not  thereby  chargeable  with  notice  of  all  the 
possibilities  of  reissue,  so  as  to  make  un- 
available in  his  behalf  the  doctrine  of  inter- 
vening rights  of  one  making  devices  covered 
by  the  reissue,  but  not  by  the  original  pat- 
ent. American  Soda-Fountain  Co.  v.  Swie- 

[VIII.  B,  2] 


tusch,  85  Fed.  968,  29  C.  C.  A.  506  [affirming 
75  Fed.  573]. 

21.  Carpenter   Straw-Sewing  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Searle,  60  Fed.  82,  8  C.  C.  A.  476  [affirming 
52  Fed.  809]. 

22.  Clements   v.   Odorless   Excavating   Ap- 
paratus Co.,  109  U.  S.  641,  3  S.  Ct.  525,  27 
L.  ed.  1060;  Miller  v.  Bridgeport  Brass  Co., 
104  U.  S.  350,  26  L.  ed.  783;  Flower  v.  De- 
troit, 22  Fed.  292;  Baltimore  Car-Wheel  Co. 
v.   North   Baltimore    Pass.    R.    Co.,   21    Fed. 
47;    Brainard   v.    Gramme,    12    Fed.   621,   20 
Blatchf.  530. 

23.  Miller    v.    Bridgeport    Brass    Co.,    104 
U.  S.  350,  26  L.  ed.  783;  Flower  v.  Detroit, 
22  Fed.  292;  Wooster  v.  Handy,  21  Fed.  51. 

24.  Miller    v.    Bridgeport    Brass    Co.,    104 
U.  S.  350,  26  L.  ed.  783. 

25.  Swain   Turbine,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Ladd,   23 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,662,  2  Ban.  &  A.  488,  11  Off. 
Gaz.   153. 

26.  Goodyear    v.   Day,    10    Fed.    Gaa.    No. 
5,566. 

27.  In   re   Briede,    27    App.    Cas.    (D.   C.) 
298,  123  Off.  Gaz.  322;  In  re  Heroult,  29  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)   42;  Whitcomb  v.  Spring  Valley 
Coal  Co.,  47  Fed.  652;  Boland  v.  Thompson, 
26  Fed.  633,  23  Blatchf.  440. 

For  facts  constituting  insufficient  excuse 
see  In  re  Briede,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  298; 
Wollensak  v.  Sargent,  151  U.  S.  221,  14 
S.  Ct.  291,  38  L.  ed.  137;  Ives  t\  Sargent, 
119  U.  S.  652,  7  S.  Ct.  436,  30  L,  ed.  544; 
Haines  v.  Peck,  26  Fed.  625. 

For  circumstances  showing  sufficient  excuse 
for  thirteen  or  fourteen  years'  delay  see 
Maitland  v.  B.  Goetz  Mfg.  Co.,  86  Fed.  124, 
29  C.  C.  A.  607;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  *.  Zylo- 
nite  Brush,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Fed.  291. 

28.  Hoskin    v.    Fisher,    125    U.    S.    217,    8 
S.  Ct.  834,  31  L.  ed.  759;  Mahn  v.  Harwood, 
112  U.  S.  354,  5  S.  Ct.   174,  28  L.  ed.  665; 
Western   Union   Tel.   Co.   t\   Baltimore,   etc., 
Tel.  Co.,  25  Fed.  30. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     923 


C.  Identity  of  Invention 29 — 1.  IN  GENERAL.  The  reissued  patent  must  be 
for  the  same  invention  as  the  original  patent  and  no  new  matter  can  be  intro- 
duced.30 The  invention  may  be  differently  stated,  but  must  remain  the  same.31 
The  "  same  invention  "  as  used  in  the  reissue  statute  refers  to  whatever  invention 
was  described  in  the  original  letters  patent  and  appears  to  have  been  secured 


29.  Conclusiveness   and   effect    of   decision 
in  patent  office  on  issue  of  identity  see  in- 
fra, VIII,  G,  3. 

30.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4916    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3393];  In  re  Hoey,  23 
App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   416;  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co. 
r.  Kearney,  158  U.  S.  461,  15  S.  Ct.  871,  39 
L.  ed.  1055;  Eby  v.  King,  158  U.  S.  366,  15 
S.  Ct.  972,  39  L.  ed.  1018;   Olin  v.  Timken, 
155  U.  S.   141,  15  S.  Ct.  49,  39  L.  ed.   100; 
Dunham    f.    Dennison   Mfg.    Co.,    154    U.    S. 
103,    14    S.    Ct.    986,   38   L.   ed.    924;    Corbin 
Cabinet  Lock  Co.  v.  Eagle  Lock  Co.,  150  U.  S. 
38,   14  S.  Ct.  28,  37  L.  ed.  989;   Leggett  v. 
Standard  Oil   Co.,   149  U.   S.  287,   13   S.  Ct. 
902,  37  L.  ed.  737;  Huber  v.  N.  0.  Nelson 
Mfg.  Co.,   148  U.  S.  270,  13  S.  Ct.  603,  37 
L.   ed.   447;    Freeman  v.   Asmus,    145   U.    S. 
226,  12  S.  Ct.  939,  36  L.  ed.  685;  Topliff  v. 
Topliff,    145    U.    S.    156,    12    S.    Ct.    825,    36 
L.  ed.   658;    Patent   Clothing  Co.  17.   Glover, 
141  U.  S.  560,  12  S.  Ct.  79,  35  L.  ed.  858; 
Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Berkshire  Nat.  Bank, 
135  U.  S.  342,  10  S.  Ct.  884,  34  L.  ed.  168  j 
Pattee  Plow  Co.  v.  Kingman,  129  U.  S.  294, 
9  S.  Ct.  259,  32  L.  ed.  700;  Farmers'  Friend 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Challenge  Corn-Planter  Co.,   128 
U.  S.  506,  9  S.  Ct.  146,  32  L.  ed.  529 ;  Flower 
v.  Detroit,   127  U.  S.  563,  8  S.  Ct.  1291,  32 
L.  ed.  175;   Worden  v.  Searls,  121  U.  S.  14, 
7  S.  Ct.  814,  30  L.  ed.  853;  Gardner  v.  Herz, 
118  U.  S.  180,  6  S.  Ct.  1027,  30  L.  ed.  158; 
Eachus  v.  Broomall,  115  U.  S.  429,  6  S.  Ct. 
229,    29    L.   ed.    419;    Cochrane   v.    Badische 
Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik,  111  U.  S.  293,  4  S.  Ct. 
455,   28   L.   ed.   433;    McMurray  v.  Mallory, 
111  U.   S.  97,  4  S.   Ct.  375,  28  L.  ed.  365; 
Gage   v.   Herring,    107    U.    S.   640,   2    S.   Ct. 
819,   27   L.   ed.   601;    Wing  v.  Anthony,   106 
U.  S.  142,  1  S.  Ct.  93,  27  L.  ed.  110;  Johnson 
v.  Flushing,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  U.  S.  539,  26 
L.  ed.  1162;  Heald  v.  Rice,  104  U.  S.  737,  26 
L.   ed.   910;    James   v.   Campbell,    104   U.    S. 
356,  26  L.  ed.  786;   Garneau  v.  Dozier,   102 
U.  S.  230,  26  L.  ed.  133;  Ball  v.  Langles,  102 
U.  S.  128,  26  L.  ed.  104;  Giant  Powder  Co. 
f?.  California  Powder  Works,  98  U.  S.  126,  25 
L.  ed.  77;  Marsh  v.  Seymour,  97  U.  S.  348, 
24  L.   ed.   963;    Russell   v.  Dodge,   93  U.   S. 
460,  23  L.  ed.  973 ;  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  v. 
Van  Deusen,  23  Wall.  (U.  S.)  530,  23  L.  ed. 
128;   Gill  v.  Wells,  22  Wall.    (U.  S.)    1,  22 
L.    ed.    699;    Littlefield    v.    Perry,    21    Wall. 
(U.  S.)    205,  22  L.  ed.  577;  Seymour  v.  Os- 
borne,   11  Wall.    (U.  S.)    516,  20  L.  ed.  33; 
Battin  t\  Taggert,   17   How.    (U.  S.)    74,   15 
L.  ed.  37 ;  Troy  Laundry  Mach.  Co.  v.  Adams 
Laundry  Mach.   Co.,   112   Fed.  437;    Idealite 
Co.  v.  Protection  Light   Co.,    103   Fed.   973; 
Gaskill  i\  Myers,  81   Fed.  854,  26  C.   C.  A. 
642;   Peoria  Target  Co.  v.  Cleveland  Target 
Co.,  58  Fed.  227,  7  C.  C.  A.  197;  American 
Heat  Insulating  Co.  v.  Johnston,  52  Fed.  228, 


3  C.  C.  A.  53 ;  Philadelphia  Novelty  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Rouss,  39  Fed.  273 ;  Hubel  v.  Dick,  28  Fed. 
132;  Gage  v.  Kellogg,  26  Fed.  242;  Reed  v. 
Chase,  25  Fed.  94;  Driven  Well  Cases,  16 
Fed.  387,  5  McCrary  181;  Doane,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Smith,  15  Fed.  459;  Gould  v.  Spicer, 
15  Fed.  344;  Hayes  v.  Seton,  12  Fed.  120,  20 
Blatchf.  484;  Walters  v.  Crandal,  11  Fed. 
868,  20  Blatchf.  118;  Smith  v.  Merriam,  6 
Fed.  903;  Novelty  Paper-Box  Co.  v.  Stapler, 
5  Fed.  919;  Flower  v.  Rayner,  5  Fed.  793; 
Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Haish,  4  Fed. 
900,  10  Biss.  65 ;  Putnam  v.  Tinkham,  4  Fed. 
411;  Siebert  Cylinder  Oil-Cup  Co.  v.  Harper 
Steam  Lubricator  Co.,  4  Fed.  328 ;  Yale  Lock 
Mfg.  Co.  17.  Scovill  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  288,  18 
Blatchf.  248;  Ball  v.  Withington,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  815,  1  Ban.  &  A.  549,  6  Off.  Gaz. 
933 ;  Cahart  V.  Austin,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,288, 
2  Cliff.  528,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  543;  Cam- 
meyer  v.  Newton,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,344,  4 
Ban.  &  A.  159,  16  Off.  Gaz.  720;  Ex  p.  Dy- 
son, 8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,228 ;  Francis  v.  Mellor, 
9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,039,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  153, 
1  Off.  Gaz.  48,  8  Phila.  (Pa.)  157;  Hoffheins 
17.  Brandt,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,575,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  218;  Johnson  v.  Flushing,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,384,  3  Ban.  &  A.  428, 
15  Blatchf.  192  [affirmed  in  105  U.  S.  539,  26 
L.  ed.  1162];  Knight  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,882,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
1,  Taney  106;  Sickles  t?.  Evans,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,839,  2  Cliff.  203,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
417;  Sloat  v.  Spring,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,948a;  Stevens  v.  Pritchard,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,407,  2  Ban.  &  A.  390,  4  Cliff.  417,  10 
Off.  Gaz.  505 ;  Tucker  v.  Tucker  Mfg.  Co.,  24 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,227,  2  Ban.  &  A.  401,  4 
Cliff.  397,  10  Off.  Gaz.  464. 

Statement  of  advantage  does  not  change 
invention.  Whitcomb  v.  Spring  Valley  Coal 
Co.,  47  Fed.  652;  Kearney  v.  Lehigh  Valley 
R.  Co.,  32  Fed.  320 ;  Potter  v.  Stewart,  7  Fed. 
215,  18  Blatchf.  561;  Ex  p.  Ball,  2  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  810. 

31.  McCreary  v.  Pennsylvania  Canal  Co., 
14  Phila.  (Pa.)  441;  Driven  Well  Cases,  122 
U.  S.  40,  7  S.  Ct.  1073,  30  L.  ed.  1064;  Gage 
v.  Herring,  107  U.  S.  640,  2  S.  Ct.  819,  27 
L.  ed.  601 ;  Elizabeth  17.  American  Nicholson 
Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000; 
Haggenmacher  v.  Nelson,  88  Fed.  486;  Gas- 
kill  f.  Myers,  81  Fed.  854,  26  C.  C.  A.  642; 
Pratt  v.  Lloyd,  65  Fed.  800;  Whitcomb  t'. 
Spring  Valley  Coal  Co.,  47  Fed.  652;  Hubsl 
v.  Waldie,  35  Fed.  414;  National  Pump 
Cylinder  Co.  v.  Gunnison,  17  Fed.  812;  Schil- 
linger  17.  Greenway  Brewing  Co.,  17  Fed.  244, 
21  Blatchf.  383;  Meyer  u.  Goodyear  India- 
Rubber  Glove  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed.  891,  20 
Blatchf  91;  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Scovill 
Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  288,  18  Blatchf.  248;  Cahart 
i?.  Austin,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,288,  2  Cliff. 

[VIII,  C,  1] 


924     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


thereby.32  A  broader  claim  than  that  in  the  original  patent  will  not  invalidate 
the  reissue  if  it  is  for  the  same  invention.33  If  not  for  the  same  invention  it  will.34 
Claims  may  be  amended  to  include  features  not  before  claimed.35  What  may 


528,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  543;  Carew  v.  Boston 
Electric  Fabric  Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,397, 
3  Cliff.  356,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  90,  1  Off.  Gaz. 
91 ;  Carver  v.  Braintree  Mfg.  Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,485,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  141,  2  Story 
432;  Christman  v.  Rumsey,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,704,  4  Ban.  &  A.  506,  17  Blatchf.  148,  17 
Off.  Gaz.  903,  58  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  114; 
Crompton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,406,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536;  Decker  v. 
Grote,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,726,  10  Blatchf. 
331,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  143,  3  Off.  Gaz.  65; 
Ex  p.  Dietz,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,902;  Good- 
year v.  Providence  Rubber  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,583,  2  Cliff.  351,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
499;  Hussey  v.  McCormick,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,948,  1  Biss.  300,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  509 ;  Par- 
ham  v.  American  Buttonhole,  etc.,  Co.,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,713,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  468; 
Pearl  v.  Ocean  Mills,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,876, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  469,  11  Off.  Gaz.  2;  Pennsyl- 
vania Salt  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,956,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  148,  8  Phila. 
(Pa.)  144;  St.  Louis  Stamping  Co.  v.  Quinby, 
21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,240,  4  Ban.  &  A.  192,  16 
Off.  Gaz.  135;  Sarven  v.  Hall,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,369,  9  Blatchf.  524,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
415,  1  Off.  Gaz.  437;  Sloat  v.  Spring,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,948a;  Tarr  v.  Folsom,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,756,  1  Ban.  &  A.  24,  Holmes  312, 
5  Off.  Gaz.  92;  Union  Paper-Bag  Co.  v. 
Nixon,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,386,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  402,  4  Off.  Gaz.  31;  Union  Paper-Collar 
Co.  v.  Leland,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,394,  1 
Ban.  &  A.  491,  Holmes  427,  7  Off.  Gaz.  221; 
Crompton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,285,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536. 

32.  Walker  Pat.  §  233;  Parker,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Yale  Clock  Co.,  123  U.  S.  87,  8  S.  Ct.  38,  31 
L.  ed.  100;  In  re  Briede,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
298,  123  Off.  Gaz.  322. 

33.  Topliff  v.  Topliff,    145  U.   S.    156,   12 
S.   Ct.   825,   36  L.  ed.   658;   Morey  v.  Lock- 
wood,  8  Wall.    (U.  S.)    230,   19  L.  ed.   339; 
Fay   t;.    Mason,    120    Fed.    506    [reversed   on 
other  grounds  in   127   Fed.  325]  ;   Hammond 
v.   Franklin,   22    Fed.    833,   23    Blatchf.   77; 
Odell  v.  Stout,  22  Fed.  159 ;  Jones  v.  Barker, 
11   Fed.  597;    Combined  Patents  Can  Co.  v. 
Lloyd,  11  Fed.  149;  Wilson  v.  Coon,  6  Fed. 
611,     18    Blatchf.    532     [reversed    on    other 
grounds  in  113  U.  S.  268,  5  S.  Ct.  537,  28 
L.    ed.    963] ;    Dorsey    Harvester    Revolving 
Rake  Co.  v.  Marsh,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,014,  6 
Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    387,    9    Phila.    (Pa.)    395; 
Lorillard    v.    McDowell,    15    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
8,510,   2   Ban.   &   A.   531,    11    Off.   Gaz.   640, 
13  Phila.    (Pa.)    461;  Morse,  etc.,  Tel.  Case, 
17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,861 ;   Seymour  v.  Marsh, 
21    Fed.   Cas.  No.    12,687,   6   Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
115,  2  Off.  Gaz.  675,  9  Phila.   (Pa.)   380. 

34.  McMurray  v.  Mallory,  111  U.  S.  97,  4 
S.   Ct.   375,   28   L.   ed.   365;   American   Heat 
Insulating  Co.   v.  Johnston,  52   Fed.   228,   3 
C.  C.  A.  53   [reversing  48  Fed.  446] ;  Inter- 
national Terra-Cotta  Lumber  Co.  v.  Maurer, 

[VIII,  C,  1] 


44  Fed.  618;  Dunham  v.  Dennison  Mfg  Co., 
40  Fed.  667  [affirmed  in  154  U.  S.  103,  14 
S.  Ct.  986,  38  L.  ed.  924] ;  Driven  Well  Cases, 
16  Fed.  387  [affirmed  in  123  U.  S.  267];  Fay 
v.  Preble,  14  Fed.  652,  11  Biss.  422;  Searls  v. 
Bouton,  12  Fed.  874,  20  Blatchf.  528;  New 
York  Bung,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hoffman,  9  Fed.  199, 

20  Blatchf.   3;    Meyer  v.  Maxheimer,   9  Fed. 
99;    Flower   v.   Rayner,    5    Fed.    793;    Giant 
Powder  Co.  v.  California  Vigorit  Powder  Co., 
4  Fed.  720,  6  Sawy.  508;  Goodyear  v.  Provi- 
dence Rubber  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,583. 

35.  Westinghouse  v.  New  York  Air-Brake 
Co.,  59  Fed.  581  [modified  in  63  Fed.  962, 
11  C.  C.  A.  528] ;  Adee  v.  Peck,  42  Fed.  497; 
Holmes  Burglar  Alarm  Tel.  Co.  v.  Domestic 
Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Fed.  220;  Jenkins  v.  Stetson, 
32  Fed.  398;  Hubel  v.  Dick,  28  Fed.  132; 
Asmus  v.  Alden,  27  Fed.  684;  Odell  v.  Stout, 
22  Fed.  159;  McWilliams  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Blun- 
dell,  11  Fed.  419;  Atwood  v.  Portland  Co.,  10 
Fed.  283;  Dederick  v.  Cassell,  9  Fed.  306; 
Smith  v.  Merriam,  6  Fed.  713;  Stephenson  v. 
Second  Ave.  R.  Co.,  1  Fed.  416;  Bantz  r. 
Elsas,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  967,  1  Ban.  &  A.  251, 
6  Off.  Gaz.  117;  Boomer  v.  United  Power 
Press  Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,638,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
106,  13  Blatchf.  107 ;  Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic 
Fabric  Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,397,  3  Cliff. 
356,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  90,  1  Off.  Gaz.  91; 
Carver  v.  Braintree  Mfg.  Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,485,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  141,  2  Story  432; 
Chicago  Fruit-House  Co.  v.  Busch,  5  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,669,  2  Biss.  472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  395; 
Christian  v.  Rumsey,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,704, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  506,  17  Blatchf.  148,  17  Off.  Gaz. 
903;  Dorsey  Harvester  Revolving  Rake  Co.  v. 
Marsh,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,014,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  387,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  395;  French  v. 
Rogers.  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,103,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  133;  Gallahue  v.  Butterfield,  9- Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,198,  10  Blatchf.  232,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
203,  2  Off.  Gaz.  645;  Gould  v.  Ballard,  10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,635,  3  Ban.  &  A.  324,  13  Off. 
Gaz.  1081;  Herring  r.  Nelson,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,424,  3  Ban.  &  A.  55,  14  Blatchf.  293,  12 
Off.  Gaz.  753  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
107  U.  S.  640,  2  S.  Ct.  819,  27  L.  ed.  601]; 
Middletown  Tool  Co.  v.  Judd,  17  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,536,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  141;  Morris  v. 
Royer,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,835,  2  Bond  66,  3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  176;  Parham  17.  American 
Buttonhole  Overseaming,  etc.,  Co.,  18  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,713,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  468;  Penn- 
sylvania Salt  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Thomas,  18  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,956,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  148,  8 
Phila.  (Pa.)  144;  Pearl  v.  Ocean  Mills,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,876,  2  Ban.  &  A.  469,  11  Off. 
Gaz.  2;  Richardson  v.  Lockwood,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,786,  4  Cliff.  128;  Seymour  v.  Marsh, 

21  Fed.    Cas.   No.    12,687,   6   Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
115,   2    Off.   Gaz.    675,    9    Phila.    (Pa.)    380; 
Stevens  v.  Pritchard,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,407, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  390,  4  Cliff.  417,  10  Off.  Gaz.  505; 
Swift  v.  Whisen,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,700,  2 
Bond  115,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  348;   Woodward 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     925 


have  been  claimed  originally  may  be  included  in  the  reissue.36  Where  the 
reissue  omits  several  devices  which  were  essential  to  the  original  purpose,  the 
reissue  is  void.37 

2.  NEW  MATTER  —  a.  In  General.  The  rule  is  otherwise,  however,  where  the 
omission  does  not  constitute  an  essential  or  material  change  but  is  only  an  inci- 
dental feature.38  The  reissue  cannot  include  matter  which  formed  a  part  of  the 
patentee's  real  invention  unless  that  matter  was  actually  included  in  the  original 
patent.39  A  failure  to  include  it  through  inadvertence,  accident,  or  mistake  does 
not  justify  its  inclusion  by  reissue.40  Where  the  claims  of  the  reissue  contain 
new  patentable  matter  which  is  so  interwoven  with  other  elements  specified  in  the 
original  that  they  cannot  be  separated,  the  entire  reissued  claim  must  be  taken 
together  and  a  patent  issued  thereon  is  void.41 

b.  Intention  to  Claim.  It  must  furthermore  appear  from  the  face  of  the 
papers  that  the  subject-matter  covered  by  the  claims  of  the  reissue  was  not 
merely  disclosed  in  the  original  patent,  but  was  sought  and  intended  to  be  claimed 
therein.42  Matter  abandoned  or  disclaimed  on  the  original  application  cannot 


v.  Dinsmore,  30  Fed.  Gas.  No.  18,003,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Gas.  163;  Crorapton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  30 
Fed.  Gas.  No.  18,285,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  536. 

36.  In   re   Briede,   27   App.    Gas.    (D.    C.) 
298,    123   Off.   Gaz.    322;    In  re   Heroult,   29 
App.  Gas.    (D.  C.)   42;   Hobbs  v.  Beach,  180 
U.    S.    383,    21    S.    Ct.    409,    45   L.   ed.    586; 
Topliff  v.  Topliff,   145  U.   S.   156,   12   S.   Ct. 
825,   36   L.   ed.   658;    Crown   Cork,   etc.,   Co. 
v.    Aluminum    Stopper    Co.,    100    Fed.    849; 
Hendy   v.    Golden    State,    etc.,    Iron    Works, 
17     Fed.     515,     8     Sawy.     468;     Calkins    v. 
Bertrand,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,317,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
215,  6  Biss.  494,  9  Off.  Gaz.  795;   Draper  v. 
Wattles,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,073,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
618,    16    Off.   Gaz.   629;    Swift  V.   Whisen,  22 
Fed.    Cas.   No.    13,700,   2    Bond    115,   3   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  343;  Wilson  v.  Singer,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,835;  In  re  Briede,  123  Off.  Gaz.  322. 

37.  Johnson  v.  Flushing,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105 
U.  S.  539,  26  L.  ed.   1162;  Russell  v.  Dodge, 
93  U.  S.  460,  23  L.  ed.  973;  Featherstone  v. 
George  R.  Bidwell  Cycle  Co.,  57  Fed.  631,  6 
C.   C.   A.   487;    Brewster  v.   Shuler,   37    Fed. 
785;    Blackman  v.   Kibbler,   3   Fed.   Cas.  No. 
1,471,  4  Ban.  &  A.  641,   17  Blatchf.  333,   10 
Reporter  257,  17  Off.  Gaz.  107. 

38.  Adee   v.    Peck,    42    Fed.    497;    Me  Wil- 
liams Mfg.  Co.  v.  Blundell,  11  Fed.  4 19-. 

39.  Schil linger     v.     Cranford,     4     Mackey 
(D.    C.)     450;    Parker    v.    Yale    Clock    Co., 
123   U.   S.   87,   8   S.   Ct.    38,    31   L.   ed.    100; 
Ives   v.    Sargent,    119   U.    S.    652,    7    S.    Ct. 
436,    30    L.    ed.    544;     Hopkins,    etc.,    Mfg. 
Co.      v.      Corbin,      103      U.      S.      786,      26 
L.    ed.    610;     Ball    v.    Langles,     102    U.    S. 
128,  26  L.  ed.  104;  Russell  v.  Dodge,  93  U.  S. 
460,  23  L.  ed.  973;   Seymour  v.  Osborne,   11 
Wall.  (U.  S.)   516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Weston  Elec- 
trical   Instrument    Co.   v.   Stevens,    134    Fed. 
574,  67  C.  C.  A.  374;  Hammond  v.  Franklin, 
22  Fed.  833,  23  Blatchf.  77;  Washburn,  etc., 
Mfg.   Co.  v.   Fuchs,   16  Fed.   661,  5  McCrary 
236;  Lorillard  v.  McAlpin,  14  Fed.  112;  At- 
water  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Beecher  Mfg.  Co.,  8  Fed. 
608;   Siebert  Cylinder  Oil-Cup  Co.  v.  Harper 
Steam  Lubricator  Co.,  4  Fed.  328 ;  Albright  v. 
Celluloid  Harness  Trimming  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  147,  2  Ban.  &  A.  629,  12  Off.  Gaz.  227; 


Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabric  Co.,  5  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,397,  3  Cliff.  356,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
90,  1  Off.  Gaz.  91;  Chicago  Fruit-House  Co. 
t?.  Busch,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,669,  2  Biss.  472, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  395;  Giant  Powder  Co.  v. 
California  Powder  Works,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,379,  2  Ban.  &  A.  131,  3  Sawy.  448  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  98  U.  S.  126,  25  L.  ed. 
77];  Kelleher  v.  Darling,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,653,  3  Ban.  &  A.  438,  4  Cliff.  424,  14  Off. 
Gaz.  673;  Sarven  v.  Hall,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,369,  9  Blatchf.  524,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  415, 

1  Off.  Gaz.  437;  Thomas  v.  Shoe  Mach.  Mfg. 
Co.,  22   Fed.   Cas.  No.    13,911,   3   Ban,   &  A. 
557,  16  Off.  Gaz.  541;  Tarr  v.  Webb,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,757,  10  Blatchf.  96,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  593,  2  Off.  Gaz.  568;  Vogler  v.  Semple, 
28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,987,  2  Ban.  &  A.  556,  7 
Biss.  382,  11  Off.  Gaz.  9-23. 

40.  James  v.  Campbell,  104  U.  S.  356,  26 
L.    ed.    786;    Seymour    v.   Osborne,    11    Wall. 
(U.  S.)  516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  O'Reilly  v.  Morse, 
15  How.  (U.  S.)  62,  14  L:  ed.  601;  Carpenter 
Straw-Sewing   Mach.    Co.    v.    Searle,    60   Fed. 
82,  8  C.  G.  A.  476;   Cahart  v.  Austin,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,288,  2  Cliff.  528,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
543;   Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  California  Powder 
Works,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,379,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
131,  3  Sawy.  448  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  98  U.  S.  126,  25  L.  ed.  77]. 

41.  Cahart  v.  Austin,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,288, 

2  Cliff.  528,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  543. 

42.  Corbin  Cabinet  Lock  Co.  v.  Eagle  Lock 
Co.,  150  U.  S.  38,  14  S.  Ct.  28,  37  L.  ed.  989; 
Freeman  v.  Asmus,  145  U.  S.  226,  12  S.  Ct. 
939,  36  L.  ed.  685 ;  Parker  v.  Yale  Clock  Co., 
123   U.   S.   87,   8   S.   Ct.   38,   31   L.  ed.   100; 
Matthews  v.  Boston  Mach.  Co.,  105  U.  S.  54, 
26  L.  ed.  1022;  Whip  Co.  v.  Hassler,  134  Fed. 
398;    Ide  v.   Trorlicht,  etc.,   Carpet  Co.,    115 
Fed.   137,  53  C.   C.  A.  341;   American  Soda- 
Fountain  Co.  v.  Zwietusch,  75  Fed.  573;  Car- 
penter Straw-Sewing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Searls,  52 
Fed.  809   [affirmed  in  60  Fed.  82,  8  C.  C.  A. 
476] ;  Railway  Register  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Broadway, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  26  Fed.  522 ;  Turrell  v.  Bradford, 
15   Fed.   808,   21   Blatchf.   284;    Kells  v.  Mc- 
Kenzie,    9    Fed.    284;    Giant    Powder    Co.    v. 
California  Powder  Works,   10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

[VIII,  C,  2,  b] 


926     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


ordinarily  be  claimed  on  reissue.43  This  doctrine  does  not  apply,  however,  if  the- 
disclaimer  was  made  by  accident,  inadvertence,  or  mistake.44 

c.  Apparatus,  Process,  and  Product.  A  patent  for  an  apparatus  cannot  gener- 
ally be  reissued  to  claim  the  process,  since  a  process  and  the  apparatus  are  not 
necessarily  one  and  the  same  invention.45  A  process  patent  cannot  generally  be 
reissued  to  cover  the  apparatus.46  There  is  no  hard  and  fixed  rule,  however,  and 
in  some  cases  such  a  reissue  may  be  allowed.46*  A  process  patent  may,  however, 
in  some  cases  be  reissued  to  cover  the  product  produced  by  the  process.47 

3.  REINSERTION  OF  CANCELED  CLAIM.  The  patentee  cannot  obtain  by  reissue 
claims  inserted  in  the  original  application  and  canceled  therefrom  in  view  of 
objection  or  rejection  by  the  patent  office.48 

D.  Surrender  of  Original  Patent.  To  obtain  a  reissue,  the  applicant  must 
surrender  the  original  patent,  but  the  surrender  does  not  take  effect  until  the 
reissue  is  granted,  and  if  the  reissue  is  refused  the  original  patent  is  in  force.49 
The  so-called  surrender  is  nothing  but  a  preliminary  offer  prior  to  the  issue  of 
the  new  patent ;  *  the  original  patent  is  extinguished  by  reissue.51  Whether,  if 


5,379,  2  Ban.  &  A.  131,  3  Sawy.  448  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  98  U.  S.  126,  25  L.  ed. 
77]. 

43.  Leggett  v.  Avery,    101   U.   S.  256,   25 
L.  ed.  865;  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Stanley  Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  115  Fed.  810;  Put- 
nam v.  Hutchinson,  12  Fed.  127,  11  Biss.  233; 
Edgarton  v.  Furst,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  9  Fed.  450, 
10  Biss.   402;    Atwater  Mfg.  Co.   t;.   Beecher 
Mfg.  Co.,  8  Fed.  608. 

44.  American    Shoe-Tip    Co.    v.    National 
Shoe-Toe  Protector  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  317, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  551,  11  Off.  Gaz.  740;  Hayden  v. 
James,    11    Fed.   Cas.    No.    6,260;    Hussey    v. 
Bradley,   12  Fed.   Cas.   No.   6,946,  5   Blatchf. 
134,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  362. 

45.  Eachus  v.  Broomall,   115  U.  S.  429,  6 
S.  Ct.  229,  29  L.  ed.  419;  Heald  V.  Rice,  104 
U.  S.  737,  26  L.  ed.  910;  James  v.  Campbell, 
104   U.   S.   356,   26   L.   ed.   786;    Brainard   v. 
Cramme,  12  Fed.  621,  20  Blatchf.  530;  New 
v.  Warren,  22  Off.  Gaz.  587. 

46.  Wing  v.   Anthony,    106    U.    S.    142,    1 
S.  Ct.  9-3,  27  L.  ed.  110;  James  v.  Campbell, 
104  U.  S.  356,  26  L.  ed.  786. 

46a.  In  re  Heroult,  29  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
42. 

47.  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  California  Powder 
Works,   98  U.   S.   126,  25  L.  ed.  77;   Tucker 
v.   Dana,   7   Fed.   213;    Badische  Anilin,  etc., 
Fabrik  v.  Hamilton  Mfg.  Co.,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
721,    3    Ban.    &   A.    235,    13    Off.    Gaz.    273; 
Badische    Anilin,    etc.,    Fabrik    v.    Higgin,    2 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    722,    3    Ban.    &    A.    462,    15 
Blatchf.    290,    14    Off.    Gaz.    414;    Tucker    v. 
Burditt,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,216,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
569;  Hunter  v.  Carrick',  11  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  300 
[affirming    10   Ont.   App.    449    (reversing   28 
Grant  Ch.   (U.  C.)   489)];  Auer  Incandescent 
Light  Mfg.  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  5  Can.  Exch.  243. 

Process  reissued  for  product  declared  in- 
valid in  the  following  cases  see  Leggett  v. 
Standard  Oil  Co.,  149  U.  S.  287,  13  S.  Ct. 
902,  37  L.  ed.  737;  Giant  Powder  Co.  v. 
California  Powder  Works,  98  U.  S.  126,  25 
L.  ed.  77;  Vacuum  Oil  Co.  v.  Buffalo  Lubri- 
cating Oil  Co.,  20  Fed.  850;  Kelleher  v.  Bar- 
ring, 14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,653,  3  Ban.  &  A.  438, 
4  Cliff.  424,  14  Off.  Gaz.  673. 

[VIII,  C,  2,  b] 


48.  In  re  Lacroix,   30  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.) 
299;    In  re   Denton,    12   App.    Cas.    (D.   C.) 
504;  In  re  Hatchman,  3  Mackey  (D.  C.)  288; 
Corbin  Cabinet  Lock  Co.  v.  Eagle  Lock  Co., 
150  U.  S.   38,   14   S.   Ct.   28,  37   L.   ed.  989; 
Dobson  v.  Lees,  137  U.  S.  258,  11  S.  Ct.  71, 
34   L.   ed.   652;    Crawford   v.   Heysinger,   123 
U.    S.    589,    8    S.    Ct.    399,    31    L.    ed.    269; 
Beecher  Mfg.   Co.   v.  Atwater   Mfg.    Co.,    114 
U.  S.  523,  5  S.  Ct.  1007,  29  L.  ed.  232;  Union 
Metallic  Cartridge  Co.  v.  U.  S.  Cartridge  Co., 
112  U.  S.  624,  5  S.  Ct.  475,  28  L.  ed.  828; 
Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Davis,  102 
U.  S.  222,  26  L.  ed.   149;   Leggett  v.  Avery, 
101    U.    S.   256,   25   L.   ed.    865;    Franklin  v. 
Illinois  Moulding  Co.,   128  Fed.  48    [affirmed 
in  138  Fed.  58,  70  C,  C.  A.  484] ;   American 
Soda-Fountain  Co.  v.  Swietusch,  85  Fed.  968, 
29  C.  C.  A.  506;  Dobson  v.  Lees,  30  Fed.  625; 
Boland  v.  Thompson,  26  Fed.  633,  23  Blatchf. 
440;   Arnheim  v.  Finster,  26  Fed.  277;   Arn- 
heim  v.  Finster,  24  Fed.  276;  Streit  v.  Lauter, 
11  Fed.  309;   Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  California 
Powder   Works,    10    Fed.    Cas.    No.    5,379-,    2 
Ban.    &   A.    131,    3    Sawy.    448    [reversed   on 
other  grounds  in  98  U.  S.  126,  25  L.  ed.  77]; 
Wicks  v.  Stevens,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,616,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  318,  2  Woods  310. 

Actual  mistake  in  canceling  claim  may  be 
corrected.  Morey  v.  Lockwood,  8  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  230,  19  L.  ed.  339;  Dunbar  v.  East- 
ern Elevating  Co.,  75  Fed.  567;  Hutchinson  v. 
Everett,  33  Fed.  502. 

49.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4916   [U. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3393];  McCormick  Har- 
vesting Mach.  Co.  v.  Aultman-Miller  Co.,  169 
U.  S.  606,  18  S.  Ct.  443,  42  L.  ed.  875;  Allen 
v.   Culp,    166    U.   S.    501,    17   S.    Ct.    644,  41 
L.  ed.  1093;   Forbes  v.  Barstow  Stove  Co.,  9 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,923,  2  Cliff.  379. 

Grounds  of  refusal  of  reissue  in  terms  may 
show  that  original  patent  is  void.  Peck  v. 
Collins,  103  U.  S.  660,  26  L.  ed.  512. 

50.  Forbes   v.   Barstow   Stove   Co.,   9   Fee 
Cas.  No.  4,923,  2  Cliff.  379. 

51.  Peck  ».  Collins,  103  U.  S.  660,  26  L. 
512;   Franklin  v.  Illinois  Moulding  Co.,   1! 
Fed.  48  [affirmed  in  138  Fed.  58,  70  C.  C. 
484];    Brown    v.   Hinkley,   4    Fed.    Cas.    Nc 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     927 


the  reissue  be  void,  the  patentee  may  fall  back  on  his  original  patent  has  not  been 
decided  by  the  supreme  court,  although  the  question  has  been  raised.52  It  has 
been  held  in  the  circuit  court  that,  if  the  reissue  is  void  for  want  of  authority  to 
make  it,  the  surrender  is  ineffective  for  want  of  authority  to  accept  it.53  Suit 
cannot  be  maintained  on  the  original  after  application  for  reissue  and  before  the 
grant.54 

E.  Applications  and  Proceedings  Thereon  — 1.  IN  GENERAL.    Where  the 
application  should  put  forth  facts  entitling  the  patentee  to  a  reissue 55  it  is  not 
indispensable  that  the  petitioner  should  use  the  exact  phraseology  of  the  statute 
if  he  employs  language  which  actually  conveys  its  legal  meaning.56     It  must  be 
signed  and  sworn  to  by  the  inventor  if  he  is  alive  and  must  be  acquiesced  in  by 
assignees.57     The    proceedings  thereon  are  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  original 
applications  except  that  a  filing  fee  of  thirty  dollars  is  charged  and  no  final  fee  is 
required.58 

2.  DIVISIONAL  REISSUES.     Several  reissues  may  be  granted  for  parts  of  the  thing 
patented  upon  the  payment  of  separate  fees  and  other  due  proceedings  had.59 

F.  Reissues  of  Reissued  Patents.     A  reissue  may  be  granted  of  a  reissued 
patent  as  well  as  of  the  original,60  and  a  second  reissue  may  return  to  the  language 
of  the  original  patent  and  be  identical  therewith.61 

G.  Conclusiveness  and  Effect  of  Patent  Office  Decisions —  l.  IN  GENERAL. 
The  grant  of  a  reissue  by  the  patent  office  raises  a  presumption  that  the  patentee 


2,012,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  370,  3  Off.  Gaz.  384; 
Reedy  v.  Scott,  10  Am.  &  Eng.  Pat.  Cas.  133. 

52.  See  Allen  v.  Gulp,   166  U.  S.  501,   17 
S.  Ct.  644,  41  L.  ed.  1093;  Eby  v.  King,  158 
U.  S.  366,  15  S.  Ct.  972,  39  L.  ed.  1018. 

53.  French  v.  Rogers,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,103, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   133.     See  also  Woodworth 
v.  Hall,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,016,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  495,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  248. 

54.  Moffitt  v.  Garr,  1  Black   (U.  S.)    273, 
17   L.   ed.    207    [affirming    17    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
9,690,    1   Bond  315,   1   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   610] ; 
Burrell   v.   Hackley,    35    Fed.    833.     Compare 
Robbins    v.   Illinois  Watch   Co.,   50   Fed.   542 
[affirmed    in     52     Fed.     215,     3     C.     C.     A. 
42]. 

55.  Eby  v.  King,  158  U.  S.  366,  15  S.  Ct. 
972,  39  L.  ed.  1018,  in  which  it  was  said  to 
be    doubtful    whether    the    commissioner    ac- 
quired any  jurisdiction,  where  there  is  only 
a  bare  statement  that  the  patentee  wishes  to 
surrender  his  patent  and  obtain  a  reissue. 

56.  Gold,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.  v.  Wiley,   17  Fed. 
234. 

57.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4895   [U.  S. 
Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    3385];    Holloway    v. 
Whiteley,  4  Wall.  (U.  S.)   522,  18  L.  ed.  335; 
Selden  v.  Stockwell  Self -Lighting  Gas  Burner 
Co.,   9    Fed.    390,    19    Blatchf.    544.     And   see 
supra,  VIII,  A,  3. 

Licensee  need  not  join  in  application. 
Meyer  v.  Bailey,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,516,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  73,  8  Off.  Gaz.  437. 

Assignee  may  file  where  inventor  is  dead. 
Wooster  v.  Handy,  21  Fed.  51. 

Guardian  of  insane  person  may  file  appli- 
cation. Whitcomb  -v.  Spring  Valley  Coal  Co., 
47  Fed.  652. 

Absence  of  oath  has  been  held  not  fatal. 
Hartshorn  v.  Eagle  Shade  Roller  Co.,  18  Fed. 
90. 

58.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §§   4916,  4934 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.   (1901)   pp.  3393,  3400]. 

Subject   to   regxamination   see   McCormick 


Harvesting  Mach.  Co.  v.  Aultman-Miller  Co., 
169  U.  S.  606,  18  S.  Ct.  443,  42  L.  ed.  875; 
Allen  v.  Culp,  166  U.  S.  501,  17  S.  Ct.  644,  41 
L.  ed.  1093;  Peck  v.  Collins,  103  U.  S.  660, 
26  L.  ed.  512;  Holloway  v.  Whiteley,  4  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  522,  18  L.  ed.  335;  Wilson  v.  Singer, 
30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,835. 

59.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4916   [U.  S. 
Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    3393];    International 
Terra-Cotta  Lumber  Co.   v.  Maurer,  44  Fed. 
618;    Selden   v.    Stockwell   Self-Lighting   Gas. 
Burner    Co.,    9    Fed.    390,    19    Blatchf.    544; 
Tucker  v.  Dana,  7  Fed.  213;  Badische  Anilin, 
etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Hamilton  Mfg.  Co.,  2  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  721,  3  Ban.  &  A.  235,  13  Off.  Gaz.  273; 
Pennsylvania    Salt   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Thomas,    19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,956,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   148, 
8  Phila.  (Pa.)   144;  Ex  p.  Selden,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   12,638;   Tucker  v.  Burditt,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,216,  4  Ban.  &  A.  569;  Wheeler  v.  Clip- 
per Mower,  etc.,  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,493, 
10   Blatchf.   181,  6  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.   1,  2   Off. 
Gaz.    442;    Wheeler    v.    McCormick,    29    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,499,  11  Blatchf.  334,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  551,  4  Off.  Gaz.  692. 

60.  Schneider  v.  Bassett,  13  Fed.  351 ;  Sel- 
den   v.    Stockwell    Self-Lighting   Gas    Burner 
Co.,   9  Fed.  390,   19  Blatchf.   544;    French  v. 
Rogers,  9   Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,103,  1   Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.    133;    Giant    Powder    Co.    v.    California 
Powder  Works,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,379,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  131,  3  Sawy.  448  [reversed  in  98  U.  S. 
126,  25  L.  ed.  77];  Morse,  etc.,  Tel.  Case,  17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,861;  Swift  v.  Whisen,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,700,  2  Bond  115,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
343;    Union  Paper    Collar   Co.    v.   White,    24 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,396,  2  Ban.  &  A.  60,  7  Off. 
Gaz.  877,  11  Phila.   (Pa.)  479. 

61.  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v.  Eureka  Spindle 
Co.,  33  Fed.  836   [affirmed  in  145  U.  S.  637, 
12  S.  Ct.  980,  36  L.  ed.  849] ;  Celluloid  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Zylonite  Brush,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Fed.  291; 
Giant  Powder  Co.  t'.  Safety  Nitro  Powder  Co., 
19  Fed.  509. 

[VIII,  G,  1] 


928     [SO  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


was  entitled  to  it  and  therefore  the  reissue  isprima  facie  valid.62  Except  as  to 
matters  appearing  on  the  face  of  the  papers  showing  excess  of  jurisdiction  by  the 
patent  it  is  conclusive.63 

2.  As  TO  GROUNDS  FOR  REISSUE.  The  conclusion  of  the  patent  office  officials 
as  to  inadvertence,  accident,  or  mistake  and  as  to  regularity  of  proceedings  is 
conclusive  in  the  absence  of  a  showing  of  fraud.64 

8.  As  TO  IDENTITY.  The  grant  of  a  reissue  raises  a  presumption  that  it  covers 
the  same  invention  which  was  sought  and  intended  to  be  claimed  in  the  original, 
but  such  presumption  is  not  conclusive  and  is  to  be  decided  from  the  face  of  the 
papers.65 


62.  Crown    Cork,    etc.,    Co.    «?.    Aluminum 
Stopper  Co.,   108  Fed.  845,  48  C.  C.  A.   72; 
Beach  v.  Hobbs,  92  Fed.  146,  34  C.  C.  A.  248; 
Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Haish,  4  Fed.  900, 
10  Biss.  65;  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
217,  2   Robb  Pat.  Cas.  530,   2  Woodb.  &  M. 
121;   American  Diamond  Rock  Boring  Co.  v. 
Sheldon,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  296,  4  Ban.  &  A.  551, 
17  Blatchf.   208;    American  Nicholson  Pave- 
ment Co.  v.  Elizabeth,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  311, 
6    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    424,     3    Off.    Gaz.    522 
[modified  in  97  U.  S.   126,  24  L.  ed.   10001 ; 
Blake  v.   Stafford,   3   Fed.   Cas.  No.    1,504,  6 
Blatchf.   195,   3   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   294;    Eicke- 
meyer  Hat  Blocking  Mach.  Co.  v.  Pearce,  8 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,312,  10  Blatchf.  403,  6  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  219,  3  Off.  Gaz.  150;  Forbes  v.  Bar- 
stow  Stove  Co.,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,923,  2  Cliff. 
379;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,519, 
2  Abb.   398,  4  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.   232,  7  Phila. 
(Pa.)    533;  Middletown  Tool  Co.  v.  Judd,  17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,536,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   141; 
Poppenhusen    v.    Falke,    19    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
11,279,  4  Blatchf.  493,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  181. 

63.  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.   (U.  S.) 
516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Spaeth  v.  Barney,  22  Fed. 
828;  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  California  Vigorit 
Powder  Co.,  4  Fed.  720,  6  Sawy.  508;  Bird- 
sail    v.    McDonald,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No.    1,434, 

1  Ban.  &  A.   165,  6  Off.  Gaz.  682;   Blake  v. 
Stafford,   3    Fed.   Cas.   No.    1,504,   6    Blatchf. 
195,    3  Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   29-4;    Chicago   Fruit- 
House  Co.  v.  Busch,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,669,  2 
Biss.   472,  4  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  395;   Judson  v. 
Bradford,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,564,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
539,  16  Off.  Gaz.  171;  Metropolitan  Washing- 
Mach.    Co.    v.    Providence   Tool    Co.,    17    Fed. 
Cas.   No.   9,507,  Holmes   161    [affirmed  in  20 
Wall.  342,  22  L.  ed.  303] ;  Milligan,  etc.,  Glue 
Co.  v.  Upton,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,607,  1  Ban. 
&  A.  497,  4  Cliff.  237,  6  Off.  Gaz.  837;  Par- 
ham    i/.    American    Buttonhole,    etc.,    Co.,    18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,713,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  468; 
Stevens  v.  Pritchard,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,407, 

2  Ban.  &  A.  390,  4  Cliff.  417,  10  Off.  Gaz.  505; 
Thomas  v.  Shoe  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,911,  3  Ban.  &  A.  557,  16  Off.  Gaz.  541; 
Wells  v.  Gill,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,394,  6  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  89,  2  Off.  Gaz.  590 ;  Wells  v.  Jaques, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,398,  1   Ban.  &  A.  60,  5 
Off.  Gaz.  364. 

64.  Mahn  v.   Harwood,    112   U.    S.   354,   5 
S.    Ct.    174,   6    S.    Ct.    451,    28    L.   ed.    665; 
Stimpson   v.    West    Chester   R.    Co.,   4    How. 
(U.  S.)    380,  11  L.  ed.  1020;  Justi  v.  Clark, 
108  Fed.  659,  47  C.  C.  A.  565  [affirming  100 
Fed.  855];  Beach  v.  Hobbs,  82  Fed.  916;  As- 

[VIII,  G,  1] 


mus  v.  Alden,  27  Fed.  684;  Western  Union 
Tel.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  25  Fed. 
30;  Selden  v.  Stockwell  Self-Lighting  Gas 
Burner  Co.,  9  Fed.  390,  19  Blatchf.  544; 
Smith  v.  Merriam,  6  Fed.  713;  Christman  v. 
Rumsey,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,704,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
506,  17  Blatchf.  148,  17  Off.  Gaz.  903,  58 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  114;  Day  v.  Goodyear,  7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,678;  Hoffheins  v.  Brandt,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,575,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  218; 
Kerosene  Lamp  Heater  Co.  v.  Littell,  14  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,724,  3  Ban.  &  A.  312,  13  Off.  Gaz. 
1009;  Middleton  Tool  Co.  v.  Judd,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,536,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  141 ;  Miller, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  t;.  Du  Brul,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,597,  2  Ban.  &  A.  618,  12  Off.  Gaz.  351; 
Sloat  v.  Spring,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,948a; 
Swift  u.  Whisen,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,700,  2 
Bond  115,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343;  Thomas  v. 
Shoe  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,911, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  557,  16  Off.  Gaz.  541. 

Limitation  of  rule. —  Error  manifest  from 
the  record  will  be  considered.  Westinghouse 
Electric,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stanley  Electric 
Mfg.  Co.,  115  Fed.  810;  Peoria  Target  Co.  V. 
Cleaveland  Target  Co.,  58  Fed.  227,  7  C.  C.  A. 
197  [affirming  47  Fed.  728] ;  Featherstone  r. 
George  R.  Bidwell  Cycle  Co.,  57  Fed.  631,  6 
€.  C.  A.  487. 

In  Canada  the  ruling  of  the  commissioner 
of  patents  that  the  patent  was  defective  or  in- 
operative is  conclusive.  Auer  Incandescent 
Light  Mfg.  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  5  Can.  Exch.  243. 

65.  O'Reilly  v.  Morse,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  62, 
14  L.  ed.  601;  Dederick  v.  Cassell,  9  Fed. 
306;  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  217,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  530,  2  Woodb.  &  M.  121; 
American  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Eliza- 
beth, 1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  311,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
424,  3  Off.  Gaz.  522  [modified  in  97  U.  S. 
126,  24  L.  ed.  1000]  ;  Andrews  v.  Wright,  1 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  382,  3  Ban.  &  A.  329,  6  Re- 
porter 193,  13  Off.  Gaz.  969;  Bantz  v.  Elsas, 
2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  967,  1  Ban.  &  A.  351,  6  Off. 
Gaz.  117;  Blake  v.  Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,504,  6  Blatchf.  195,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  294; 
French  v.  Rogers,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,103,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  133;  Guidet  v.  Barber,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,857,  5  Off.  Gaz.  149;  House 
v.  Young,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,738,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  335;  Hussey  v.  Bradley,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,946,  5  Blatchf.  134,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
362;  Hussey  v.  McCormick,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,948,  1  Biss.  300,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  509; 
Jordan  v.  Dobson,  13  Fed.  Cas.  NO.  7,519,  2 
Abb.  398,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  232,  7  Phila. 
(Pa.)  533;  Poppenhusen  v.  Falke,  19  Fed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     929 


H.  Validity,  Construction,  and  Operation  of  Reissues66  —  i.  VALIDITY. 

Aside  from  the  questions  of  new  matter  and  estoppel,  the  validity  of  a  reissue  is 
determined  by  the  same  considerations  as  the  original  patent,67  and,  upon  the 
questions  of  anticipation  and  public  use  and  sale,  relates  back  to  the  date  of  the 
original  application  for  patent.68  Fraud  will  invalidate  the  reissue,69  but  clerical 
error,70  or  irregularities  of  procedure  in  matters  not  vital,71  will  not.  One  claim 
in  a  reissue  may  be  void  without  necessarily  invalidating  the  other  claims,  and  in 
such  case  it  is  proper  to  disclaim  the  void  claim,72  and  a  reissue  is  not  invalid 
merely  because  the  claim  of  the  original  patent  was  valid.73 

2.  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  —  a.  In  General.     As  respects  the  construction 
and  operation  of  reissues  the  same  rules  apply  as  in  original  patents.74 


Cas.  No.  11,279,  4  Blatchf.  493,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  181:  Reissner  v.  Anness,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,688,  3  Ban.  &  A.  176,  13  Off.  Gaz. 
870;  Sloat  v.  Spring,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,948a;  Stevens  v.  Pritchard,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,407,  2  Ban.  &  A.  390,  4  Cliff.  417,  10 
Off.  Gaz.  505;  Thomas  v.  Shoe  Mach.  Mfg. 
Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,911,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
557,  16  Off.  Gaz.  541 ;  U.  S.,  etc.,  Felting  Co. 
v.  Haven,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,788,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  164,  3  Dill.  131,  9  Off.  Gaz.  253;  Wood- 
worth  v.  Edwards,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,014,  2 
Eobb  Pat.  Cas.  610,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  120. 

That  identity  is  determined  by  comparison 
of  original  and  reissue  see  Hoskin  v.  Fisher, 
125  U.  S.  217,  8  S.  Ct.  834,  31  L.  ed.  759; 
Russell  v.  Dodge,  93  U.  S.  460,  23  L.  ed. 
973;  Stimpson  v.  West  Chester  R.  Co.,  4 
How.  (U.  S.)  380,  11  L.  ed.  1020;  Searls  v. 
Worden,  11  Fed.  501;  Flower  v.  Rayner,  5 
Fed.  793;  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
217,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  598,  2  Woodb.  &  M. 
121 ;  American  Diamond  Rock  Boring  Co.  v. 
Sheldon,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  296,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
603,  17  Blatchf.  303 ;  Bridge  v.  Brown,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,857,  Holmes  53;  Cahart  v.  Austin, 
4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,288,  2  Cliff.  528,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  543;  Goodyear  17.  Berry,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,556,  2  Bond  189,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
439;  Graham  v.  Mason,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,671,  4  Cliff.  88,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1;  John- 
son v.  Beard,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,371,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  50,  8  Off.  Gaz.  435 ;  Middleton  Tool  Co. 
v.  Judd,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,536,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  141 ;  Reissner  v.  Anness,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,688,  3  Ban.  &  A.  176,  13  Off.  Gaz. 
870;  Sickles  v.  Evans,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,839,  2  Cliff.  203,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  417; 
Thomas  v.  Shoe  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,911,  3  Ban.  &  A.  557,  16  Off.  Gaz. 
541 ;  Tucker  v.  Tucker  Mfg.  Co.,  25  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,227,  2  Ban.  &  A.  401,  4  Cliff.  397,  10 
Off.  Gaz.  464;  Woodward  v.  Dinsmore,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,003,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  163. 

The  question  of  identity  is  one  of  law  for 
the  court.  Heald  v.  Rice,  104  U.  S.  737,  26 
L.  ed.  910;  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  516,  20  L.  ed.  33. 

That  original  patent  must  be  introduced 
for  comparison  see  Doherty  v.  Haynes,  7  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,963,  1  Ban.  &  A.  289,  4  Cliff.  291, 
6  Off.  Gaz.  118;  Johnson  v.  Beard,  13  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,371,  2  Ban.  &  A.  50,  8  Off.  Gaz. 
435. 

66.  Identity  of  invention  see  supra,  VIII, 
C. 

[59] 


67.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4916   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3393]   Shaw  v.  Cooper, 
7  Pet.   (U.  S.)   292,  8  L.  ed.  689;  Forsyth  v. 
Clapp,   9   Fed.   Cas.  No.   4,949,  6   Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  528,  Holmes  278,  4  Off.  Gaz.  527. 

68.  U.  S.  Stamping  Co.  v.  King,  7  Fed.  860, 
17   Blatchf.   55;    Bloomer   v.   Stolley,   3    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,559,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  376,  5  McLean 
158;  House  v.  Young,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,738, 
3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  335;  Hussey  v.  Bradley,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,946,  5  Blatchf.   134,  2   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  362;  Smith  v.  Pearce,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,089,  2  McLean  176,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
13;    Stanley   v.    Whipple,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
13,286,   2  McLean   35,   2  Robb  Pat.   Cas.    1; 
Woodworth  v.  Hall,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,016, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  495,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  248. 

69.  Odell  v.   Stout,  22   Fed.   159;   Poppen- 
husen  v.  Falke,   19   Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,280,  5 
Blatchf.  46,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  213;   Singer  v. 
Walmsley,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   12,900,   1   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  558 ;  Swift  v.  Whisen,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    13,700,   2   Bond   115,   3   Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
343. 

70.  Bignall    v.    Harvey,    4    Fed.    334,    18 
Blatchf.  353;  Kendricks  <?.  Emmons,  14  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,695,  2  Ban.  &  A.  208,  9  Off.  Gaz. 
201 ;  Robertson  v.  Secombe  Mfg.  Co.,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,928,  10  Blatchf.  481,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  268,  3  Off.  Gaz.  412. 

71.  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Wetherbee,   7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,810,  2  Cliff.  555,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  87. 

72.  Gage  v.  Herring,  107  U.  S.  640,  2  S.  Ct. 
819,  27  L.  ed.  601 ;  Rawson,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
C.  W.  Hunt  Co.,  147  Fed.  239,  77  C.  C.  A. 
381;   Worden  v.  Searls,  21   Fed.  406;   Have- 
meyer  v.  Randall,   21    Fed.  404;   Dryfoos  v. 
Wiese,    19   Fed.   315;    Fetter   v.   Newhall,    17 
Fed.  841,  21   Blatchf.  445;   Wood  v.  Packer, 
17  Fed.  650;   Schillinger  v.  Greenway  Brew- 
ing Co.,  17  Fed.  244.  21  Blatchf.  383;  Cote  v. 
Moffitt,  15  Fed.  345 ;  Starrett  v.  Athol  Mach. 
Co.,  14  Fed.  910;  Tyler  v.  Galloway,  12  Fed. 
567,  20  Blatchf.  445;   Collins  Co.  v.  Goes,  3 
Fed.  225. 

73.  Wilson  v.  Coon,  6  Fed.  611,  18  Blatchf. 
532. 

74.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4916   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3393];  Grant  v.  Town- 
send,    10    Fed.    Cas.    No.    5,701;    Parham    v. 
American      Buttonhole      Overseaming,      etc., 
Mach.  Co.,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,713,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  468. 

If  possible   the   reissue  will   be   sustained. 
Brainard  v.  Gramme,  12  Fed.  621,  20  Blatchf. 

[VIII,  H,  2.  a] 


930     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


b.  Retroactive  Operation.  An  infringe!*  of  the  claims  of  a  reissue  can  be 
held  only  for  acts  committed  after  the  reissue  is  granted.75  But  the  fact  that  he 
was  using  the  invention  before  the  reissue  was  granted  does  not  relieve  him  from 
liability  for  using  it  subsequent  to  the  reissue.76 

IX.  DISCLAIMERS. 

A.  In  General.     The  patentee,  his  heirs  or  assigns,  whether  of  the  whole  or 
any  particular  interest  therein,  may  upon  payment  of  the  fee  fixed  by  law  make 
his  disclaimer  of  such  parts  of  the  thing  patented  as  he  shall  not  choose  to  claim 
or  hold  under  the  patent.77     It  must  indicate  the  interest  of  the  disclaimant,78 
and  must  be  in  writing  attested  by  one  or  more  witnesses  and  must  be  recorded 
in  the  patent  office.79 

B.  Subject-Matt er  of  Disclaimer.     The  separate  claims  of  a  patent  may  be 
eliminated  by  disclaimer,  but  they  cannot  be  amended  and  transformed  into  other 
claims,  and  matter  cannot  be  added  to  the  specification  under  guise  of  disclaimer.80 


530;   Ely  v.  Monson,  etc.,  Mfg.   Co.,  8   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,431,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  64. 

75.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4916    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3393];  Brown  v.  Hink- 
ley,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,012,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
370,   3    Off.    Gaz.   384;    Perry   v.   Skinner,    1 
Jur.  433,  6  L.  J.  Exch.  124,  M.  &  H.  122,  2 
M.  &  W.  471;  35  Viet.  c.  26,  §  19;  38  Viet, 
c.   14,   §   1. 

76.  Agawam  Woolen  Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  583,  19  L.  ed.  177;  Stimpson  v.  West 
Chester  R.  Co.,  4  How.  (U.  S.)  380,  11  L.  ed. 
1020;    Bliss    v.    Brooklyn,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,544,  8  Blatchf.  533,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  596; 
Bloomer   v.   Stolley,   3    Fed.   Cas.   No.    1,559, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  376,  5  McLean  158;  Carr  v. 
Rice,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,440,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
198 ;    Goodyear    v.    Day,  •  10    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
5,566;    Howe  v.  Williams,   12   Fed.  Cas.   No. 
6,778,   2    Cliff.   245,   2   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   395; 
Hussey  v,  Bradley,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,946,  5 
Blatchf.  134,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  362. 

77.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4917   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3393];   Sessions  v.  Ro- 
madka,  145  U.  S.  29,  12  S.  Ct.  799,  36  L.  ed. 
609 ;  Collins  Co.  v.  Coes,  130  U.  S.  56,  9  S.  Ct. 
514,  32  L.  ed.  858;   Hailes  v.  Albany  Stove 
Co.,  123  U.  S.  582,  8  S.  Ct.  262,  31   L.  ed. 
284;   Union  Metallic  Cartridge  Co.  v.  U.  S. 
Cartridge  Co.,  112  U.  S.  624,  5  S.  Ct.  475,  28 
L.  ed.  828;  Dunbar  v.  Meyers,  94  U.  S.  187, 
24   L.    ed.    34;    Smith    v.   Nichols,   21    Wall. 
(U.  S.)   112,  22  L.  ed.  566;  Cambria  Iron  Co. 
v.  Carnegie  Steel  Co.,  96  Fed.  850,  37  C.  C.  A. 
693   [reversing  89  Fed.  721];   Schwarzwalder 
v.    New   York    Filter    Co.,    66    Fed.    152,    13 
C.  C.  A.  380;   Matthews  v.  Spangenberg,  19 
Fed.  823,  20  Blatchf.  482;  Aiken  v.  Dolan,  1 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    110,   3    Fish.   Pat.   Cas.    197; 
Whitney  v.  Emmett,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,585, 
Baldw.  303,   1   Robb  Pat.  Cas.  567;   McCor- 
mick  v.  Seymour,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,727,  3 
Blatchf.  209 ;  Tuck  -v.  Bramhill,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,213,  6  Blatchf.  95,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
400. 

In  Canada  the  law  is  like  that  in  the 
United  States.  St.  35  Viet.  c.  26,  §  20. 

English  practice. — Application  to  the  pat- 
ent office  for  leave  to  amend  by  disclaimer 
may  be  made  at  any  time  where  suit  is  not 

[VIII,  H,  2,  b] 


pending  (In  re  Hall,  21  Q.  B.  D.  137,  57 
L.  J.  Q.  B.  494,  59  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  37,  36 
Wkly.  Rep.  892),  and  amendment  may  be 
made  pending  suit  in  order  of  court  (Crop- 
per v.  Smith,  28  Ch.  D.  148,  54  L.  J.  Ch.  287, 
52  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  94,  33  Wkly.  Rep.  338; 
Yates  v  Armstrong,  77  L.  T.  Rep.  X.  S.  267 ; 
Singer  v.  Hasson,  50  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  326 )  ; 
master  of  rolls  may  expunge  disclaimer  im- 
properly filed  (In  re  Berdan,  L.  R.  20  Eq. 
346,  44  L.  J.  Ch.  544,  23  Wkly.  Rep.  823)  ; 
amendment  permitted  by  court  pending  suit 
on  conditions  (Deeley  v.  Perkes,  [1896]  A.  C. 
496,  65  L.  J.  Ch.  912;  Ludington  Cigarette 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Baron  Cigarette  Mach.  Co., 
[1900]  1  Ch.  508,  69  L.  J.  Ch.  321,  82  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  173,  48  Wkly.  Rep.  505;  Gaulard 
v.  Lindsay,  38  Ch.  D.  38,  57  L.  J.  Ch.  687, 
52  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  44;  Haslam  Foundry, 
etc.,  Co.  f.  Goodfellow,  37  Ch.  D.  118,  56 
L.  J.  Ch.  245,  57  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  788,  36 
Wkly.  Rep.  391 ;  Bray  v.  Gardner,  34  Ch.  D. 
668,  56  L.  J.  Ch.  497,  56  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
292,  35  Wkly.  Rep.  341;  Fusee  Vesta  Co.  v. 
Bryant,  34  Ch.  D.  458,  56  L.  J.  Ch.  187,  56 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  110,  35  Wkly.  Rep.  267; 
In  re  Gaulard,  57  L.  J.  Ch.  209,  5  Rep.  Pat. 
Cas.  192;  Lang  v.  Whitecross  Co.,  62  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  119  [affirmed  in  89  L.  T.  J.  251]; 
and  assignee  may  disclaim  (Spilsbury  v. 
Clough,  2  Q.  B.  466,  2  G.  &  D.  17,  6  Jur. 
579,  11  L.  J.  Q.  B.  109,  42  E.  C.  L.  763; 
Wallington  v.  Dale,  23  L.  J.  Exch.  40). 

78.  Silsby  v.  Foote,  14  How.    (U.  S.)    218, 
14  L.  ed.  394;  Brooks  v.  Jenkins,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    1,953,    Fish.    Pat.    Rep.    41,    3    McLean 
432. 

79.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4917    [U.   S. 
Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.   3393];    Hovey  v.   Ste- 
vens,   12   Fed.   Cas.   No.   6,746,   2   Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  567,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  17. 

80.  Hailes  v.  Albany  Stove  Co.,  123  U.  S. 
582,    8    S.    Ct.    202,    31-L.    ed.    284;    Union 
Metallic    Cartridge    Co.    v.   U.    S.    Cartridge 
Co.,   112  U.  S.  624,  5  S.  Ct.  475,  28  L.  ed. 
828;    Westinghouse    Air    Brake    Co.    v.    New 
York  Air  Brake  Co.,  139  Fed.  265;  Otis  Ele- 
vator Co.  r.  Portland  Co.,   127   Fed.  557,  62 
C.  C.  A.  339   [affirming  119  Fed.  928];  Tor- 
rant   v.    Duluth   Lumber    Co.,    30    Fed.    830; 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     931 


A  disclaimer  may  extend  to  a  part  of  the  specification  as  well  as  to  a  claim  or  one 
feature  of  a  claim,81  and  part  of  a  reissued  patent  may  be  disclaimed.82  A  dis- 
claimer can  eliminate  only  matter  which  is  clearly  severable  from  the  balance,  and 
which  can  be  removed  without  changing  the  balance.83  Elements  of  a  combina- 
tion claim  cannot  be  eliminated.84  Where  a  reissue  is  void  because  too  broad  the 
original  patent  cannot  be  revived  by  merely  filing  a  disclaimer  of  all  extensions 
thereof.85 

C.  Time  For  Disclaimer.     Disclaimer  should  be  filed  without  unreasonable 
delay,  and,  unless  filed  before  suit  is  brought,  no  costs  can  be  recovered  by  the 

Eatentee.86     Disclaimer  may,  however,  be  made  after  as  well  as  before  suit  ;87  the 
lilure  to  file  before  suit  affecting  costs  only  and  not  the  decree.88     Whether  a 
delay  in  filing  a  disclaimer  is  unreasonable  is  a  question  of  law.89 

D.  Effect  of  Failure  to  Disclaim.     It  is  not  necessary  to  enter  disclaimer 


Hailes  v.  Albany  Stove  Co.,  16  Fed.  240,  21 
Blatchf.  271;  Thomas  v.  Welch,  L.  R.  1  C.  P. 
192,  12  Jur.  N.  S.  316,  35  L.  J.  C.  P.  200; 
Ralston  v.  Smith,  11  C.  B.  N.  S.  471,  8  Jur. 
N.  S.  100,  31  L.  J.  C.  P.  102,  103  E.  C.  L. 
471  [affirmed  in  20  C.  B.  N.  S.  28,  11  H.  L. 
Cas.  223,  35  L.  J.  C.  P.  49,  13  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  1,  11  Eng.  Reprint  1318];  Tetley  v. 
Easton,  2  C.  B.  N.  S.  706,  26  L.  J.  C.  P.  269, 
89  E.  C.  L.  706;  Seed  v.  Higgins,  8  H.  L. 
Cas.  550,  6  Jur.  N.  S.  1264,  30  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
314,  3  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  101,  11  Eng.  Reprint 
544. 

Limitation  to  particular  use  is  proper. 
Thompson  v.  N.  T.  Bushnell  Co.,  96  Fed.  238, 
37  C.  C.  A.  456  [reversing  88  Fed.  81]. 

That  the  patentee  cannot  add  a  feature  to 
the  invention  claimed  see  Albany  Steam  Trap 
Co.  v.  Worthington,  79  Fed.  966,  25  C.  C.  A. 
258;  White  v.  E.  P.  Gleason  Mfg.  Co.,  17  Fed. 
159,  21  Blatchf.  364;  Hailes  v.  Albany  Stove 
Co.,  16  Fed.  240,  21  Blatchf.  271;  Coburn  r. 
Schroeder,  11  Fed.  425,  20  Blatchf.  392. 

That  the  patentee  may  claim  combination 
and  disclaim  separate  elements  see  Black  v. 
Thome,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,465,  10  Blatchf.  66, 
5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  550,  2  Off.  Gaz.  388. 

81.  Carnegie  Steel  Co.  v.  Cambria  Iron  Co., 
185  U.  S.  403,  22  S.  Ct.  698,  46  L.  ed.  968 
[reversing  96  Fed.  850,  37  C.  C.  A.  593]. 

82.  Hiirlbut  v.  Schillinger,  130  U.  S.  456, 
9  S.  Ct.  584,  32  L.  ed.  1011;  Gage  v.  Herring, 
107  U.  S.  640,  2  S.  Ct.  819,  27  L.  ed.  601; 
Tyler  v.  Galloway,   12  Fed.  567,  20  Blatchf. 
445;   Collins  Co.  v.  Goes,  3  Fed.  225;   Schil- 
linger i?.  Gunther,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,458,  4 
Ban.  &  A.  479,   17  Blatchf.  66,   16  Off.  Gaz. 
905. 

83.  Hailes  v.  Albany  Stove  Co.,  123  U.  S. 
582,  8  S.  Ct.  262,  31  L.  ed.  284;  Manhattan 
Gen.    Constr.    Co.    v.    Helios-Upton    Co.,    135 
Fed.    785;    Schillinger    v.    Gunther,    21    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,458,  4  Ban.  &  A.  479,  17  Blatchf. 
66,  16  Off.  Gaz.  905. 

84.  Cerealine   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Bates,   77    Fed. 
883;    Batten    v.    Clayton,    2    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,105;  Westlake  v.  Cartter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,451,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  519,  4  Off.  Gaz.  636. 

85.  McMurray  v.  Mallory,    111    U.    S.   97, 
4  S.  Ct.  375,  28  L.  ed.  365. 

86.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4922    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3396];   Roemer  v.  Neu- 
mann, 132  U.  S.  103,  10  S.  Ct.  12,  33  L.  ed. 


277;  Silsby  v.  Foote,  20  How.  (U.  S.)  378, 
15  L.  ed.  822;  Reed  v.  Cutter,  20  Fed.  Casr 
No.  11,645,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  81,  1  Story 
590. 

Reasonable  delay  illustrated  see  O'Reilly 
v.  Morse,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  62,  14  L.  ed.  601; 
Thompson  •».  N.  T.  Bushnell  Co.,  96  Fed.  238, 
37  C.  C.  A.  456 ;  Christman  v.  Rumsey,  5  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,704,  4  Ban.  &  A.  506,  17  Blatchf. 
148,  17  Off.  Gaz.  903,  58  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
114. 

English  practice. — Amendment  by  dis- 
claimer pending  suit  is  for  discretion  of  the 
judge.  Deeley  v.  Perkes,  [1896]  A.  C.  496, 
65  L.  J.  Ch.  912;  Brooks  v.  Lycett's  Saddle, 
etc.,  Accessory  Co.,  [1904]  1  Ch.  512,  73  L.  J. 
Ch.  319-;  In  re  Geipel,  [1904]  1  Ch.  239,  73 
L.  J.  Ch.  215,  90  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  70,  52 
Wkly.  Rep.  339;  In  re  Geipel,  [1903]  2  Ch. 
715,  73  L.  J.  Ch.  47,  89  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  127, 
52  Wkly.  Rep.  63;  Ludington's  Cigarette 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Baron  Cigarette  Mach.  Co., 
[1900]  1  Ch.  508,  69  L.  J.  Ch.  321,  82  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  173,  48  Wkly.  Rep.  505;  In  re 
Owen,  [1899]  1  Ch.  157,  68  L.  J.  Ch.  63,  79 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  458,  47  Wkly.  Rep.  180;  In  re 
Gaulard,  57  L.  J.  Ch.  209,  5  Rep.  Pat.  Cas. 
192;  Yates  v.  Armstrong,  77  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
267;  In  re  Lang,  7  Rep.  Pat.  Cas.  469.  Suit 
instituted  after  petition  to  amend  is  no  bar. 
Wolfe  v.  Automatic  Picture  Gallery,  [1903] 
1  Ch.  18,  72  L.  J.  Ch.  34,  87  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
539  [affirming  51  Wkly.  Rep.  121].  Dis- 
claimer pending  suit  does  not  include  "  cor- 
rection and  explanation,"  but  only  elimina- 
tion. In  re  Owen,  supra;  In  re  Gaulard, 
supra :  In  re  Lang,  supra. 

87:  Smith  v.  Nichols,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
112,  22  L.  ed.  566;  Libbey  v.  Mt.  Washington 
Glass  Co.,  26  Fed.  757;  Myers  v.  Frame,  17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,991,  8  Blatchf.  446,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  493;  Wyeth  v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  18,107,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  23,  1  Story 
273. 

88.  Sessions   v.   Romadka,    145   U.    S.    29, 
12  S.  Ct.  799-,  36  L.  ed.  609 ;  Plecker  v.  Poor- 
man,   147  Fed.  528;    Stutz  v.  Armstrong,   20 
Fed.   843;    Hall    v.   Wiles,   11    Fed.   Cas.    No. 
5,954,  2  Blatchf.  194,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  433. 

89.  Seymour     «?.     McCormick,      19      How. 
(U.  S.)   96,  15  L.  ed.  557.     Compare  Brooks 
v.  Jenkins,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,963,  Fish.  Pat 
Rep.  41,  3  McLean  432. 

[IX,  D] 


932     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


except  as  to  substantial  or  material  parts.90  The  failure  to  disclaim  invalid  claims 
will  not  prevent  recovery  of  damages  for  the  infringement  of  valid  claims  in  the 
patent  where  the  patentee  was  not  guilty  of  fraud  and  where  there  was  no 
unreasonable  neglect  or  delay  in  entering  disclaimer.91  Unreasonable  delay,  how- 
ever, will  be  a  good  defense  to  the  suit.92 

E.  Effect  of  Disclaimer.  In  determining  the  meaning  of  a  disclaimer, 
the  same  rules  are  to  be  observed  as  in  construing  any  other  written  instrument, 
the  purpose  being  to  carry  out  the  intention  of  the  person  executing  it  as  indi- 
cated by  its  language  when  construed  with  reference  to  the  proceedings  of  which 
it  forms  a  part.93  A  disclaimer  limits  the  patent  in  so  far  as  the  disclaimant  is 
concerned  to  the  matter  therein  which  is  not  disclaimed.94  It  is  effective  only  as 
to  the  party  filing  it,95  and  a  disclaimer  in  one  patent  does  not  affect  another.96 

X.  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  OF  LETTERS  PATENT.97 
A.  In  General  —  1.  GENERAL  RULES  OF   CONSTRUCTION   RELATING  TO   CONTRACTS 
APPLICABLE.     A  patent  is  subject  to  the  same  general  rules  of  construction  that 
apply  to  other  contracts.98     The  entire  instrument,  including  the  drawings  and 
specifications,  is  to  be  considered  in  arriving  at  its  intent  and  meaning.99 


90.  Hall  v.  Wiles,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,954, 
2  Blatchf.  194,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  433;   Peek  v. 
Frame,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,904,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  211. 

91.  Affects     only     costs.        Hotchkiss     v. 
Oliver,  5  Den.   (N.  Y.)    314;   Seymour  0.  Mc- 
Cormick,  19  How.   (U.  S.)   96,  15  L.  ed.  557; 
Kittle   v.   Hall,   30   Fed.   239;    Schillinger   v. 
Gunther,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,458,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
479,   17  Blatchf.   66,  16  Off.  Gaz.  905;   Tuck 
v.    Bramhill,    23    Fed.    Cas.    No.    14,213,    6 
Blatchf.  95,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  400. 

Disclaimer  by  attorney  in  prosecuting  ap- 
plication distinguished.  Mann  v.  Bayliss, 
16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,034,  10  Off.  Gaz.  113. 

English  practice. —  Patent  void  unless  dis- 
claimer entered.  Cannington  v.  Nuttall,  L.  R. 
5  H.  L.  205,  40  L.  J.  Ch.  739;  In  re  Dellwick, 
[1896]  2  Ch.  705,  65  L.  J.  Ch.  905. 

92.  Rice  v.  Garnhart,  34  Wis.  453,  17  Am. 
Rep.  448 ;  Brooks  v.  Jenkins,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,953,    Fish.    Pat.    Rep.    41,    3   McLean    432; 
Hall    v.    Wiles,    10    Fed.    Cas.    No.    5,9-54,    2 
Blatchf.   194,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  433;   Hovey  v. 
Stevens,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,745,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  479,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  479;  McCormick  v. 
Seymour,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,727,  3  Blatchf. 
209;     Parker    v.    Stiles,     18    Fed.   Cas.    No. 
10,749,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.   319,  5  McLean  319; 
Reed  v.  Cutter,  20   Fed.   Cas.  No.    11,645,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  81,  1  Story  590. 

93.  Graham  v.  Earl,  82  Fed.  737,  92  Fed. 
155,  34  C.  C.  A.  267. 

A  construction  which  would  render  the  dis- 
claimer nugatory  must  be  essentially  wrong 
and  cannot  be  accepted.  Atlantic  Giant  Pow- 
der Co.  v.  Hulings,  21  Fed.  519. 

Disclaimer  before  issue  of  patent  entitled 
to  great  weight.  Brown  Folding  Mach.  Co. 
v.  Stonematz  Printers'  Mach.  Co.,  58  Fed.  571, 
7  C.  C.  A.  374  [affirming  57  Fed.  601]. 

94.  Dunbar   v.   Meyers,   94  U.    S.    187,   24 
L.  ed.  34;   Silsby  v.  Foote,  20  How.    (U.  S.) 
378,  15  L.  ed.  953;  Manhattan  Gen.  Constr. 
Co.    v.    Helios    Upton    Co.,    135    Fed.    785; 
Graham  v.  Earl,  92  Fed.  155,  34  C.  C.  A.  267; 

[IX,  D] 


Schwarzwalder  v.  New  York  Filter  Co.,  66  Fed. 
152,  13  C.  C.  A.  380;  Atlantic  Giant  Powder 
Co.  v.  Hulings,  21  Fed.  519. 

95.  Potter   v.    Holland,    20    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
11,329,  4  Blatchf.  206,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  327; 
Wyeth   v.  Stone,  30   Fed.  Cas.  No.    18,107,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  23,  1  Story  273. 

96.  Washburn,     etc.,     Mfg.     Co.     v.     Beat 
'Em  All  Barbed-Wire  Co.,  143  U.  S.  275,  12 
S.  Ct.  443,  36  L.  ed.  154;  Hill  r.  Dunklee,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,489,  McArthur  Pat.  Cas.  475. 

97.  Decisions  of  United  States  as  to  con- 
struction as  precedents  for  other  courts  see 
COUBTS,  11  Cyc.  752. 

98.  O.    H.    Jewell    Filter    Co.    v.    Jackson, 
140  Fed.  340,  72  C.  C.  A.  304;  National  Hol- 
low Brake-Beam  Co.  v.  Interchangeable  Brake- 
Beam   Co.,    106    Fed.    693,   45   C.   C.  A.   544; 
Elgin  Co-operative  Butter-Tub  Co.  v.  Cream- 
ery Package  Mfg.  Co.,  80  Fed.  293,  25  C.  C.  A. 
426;   Harris  t?.  Allen,   15  Fed.   106;   Whitney 
v.  Einmett,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,535,  Baldw. 
303,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  567;  Came  v.  Consol- 
idated Car  Heating  Co.,  11  Quebec  K.  B.  103. 

Terms  given  ordinary  meaning  see  Clark  v. 
Adie,  2  App.  Cas.  423,  46  L.  J.  Ch.  598,  27 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  1,  26  Wkly.  Rep.  45 ;  Gross- 
ley  v.  Beverley,  9-  B.  &  C.  63,  17  E.  C.  L.  38, 
3  C.  &  P.  513,  14  E.  C.  L.  690,  7  L.  J.  K.  B. 
O.  S.  127,  M.  &  M.  283,  1  Russ.  &  M.  166 
note,  5  Eng.  Ch.  166  note,  39  Eng.  Reprint 
65;  Elliott  v.  Turner,  2  C.  B.  446,  15  L.  J. 
C.  P.  49,  52  E.  C.  L.  446. 

To  make  up  a  claim  two  patents  cannot  be 
read  together.  Rose  v.  Hirsh,  77  Fed.  469, 
23  C.  C.  A.  246. 

99.  Hogg  i\  Emerson,  6  How.  (U.  S.)  437, 
12  L.  ed.  505,  11   How.  587,  13  L.  ed.  824; 
O.  H.  Jewell  Filter  Co.  v.  Jackson,  140  Fed. 
340,  72  C.  C.  A.  304 ;  Holt  v.  Kendall,  26  Fed. 
622;  Aiken  v.  Dolan,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.   110,  3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   197;    Bell  v.  Daniels,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,247,  1  Bond  212,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
372;    Carver   v.   Braintree   Mfg.    Co.,   5   Fed. 
Cas.    No.    2,485,    2    Robb    Pat.    Cas.    141,    2 
Story  432;  Davoll  v.  Brown,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     933 


2.  LIBERALLY  CONSTRUED.     Patents  are  to  be  liberally  construed  so  as  to  secure 
to  the  inventor  the  real  invention  which  he  intends  to  secure  by  his  patent,  and 
technical  defects  or  inaccuracies  will  not  be  permitted  to  prevent  this  result.1     The 
description  of  the  patent,  however,  must  be  so  certain  as  to  be  understood  by  those 
acquainted  with  the  subject-matter.2     There  should  not  be  a  liberality  of  con- 
struction which  permits  the  inventor  to  couch  his  specification  in  such  ambiguous 
terms  that  its  claims  may  be  expanded  or  contracted  to  suit  the  exigency  ; 3  and 
where  an  inventor  divides  up  his  invention  so  as  to  present  certain"  elements  in 
different  patents,  he  is  thereby  limited  to  a  more  strict  and  narrow  construction 
than  might  have  been  otherwise  necessary.4 

3.  PLAIN  MEANING  NOT  VARIED.     The   plain   and   clear   meaning   of  the   terms 


3,662,  2  Robb  Pat.  Gas.  303,  1  Woodb.  &  M. 
53;  Earle  v.  Sawyer,  8  Fed.  Gas.  No.  4,247, 
4  Mason  1,  1  Robb  Pat.  Gas.  490;  Evans  V. 
Eaton,  8  Fed.  Gas.  No.  4,559,  1  Robb  Pat.  Gas. 
68,  Pet.  C.  C.  322;  Foss  v.  Herbert,  9  Fed. 
Gas.  No.  4,957,  1  Biss.  121,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Gas. 
31;  Hamilton  v.  Ives,  11  Fed.  Gas.  No.  5,982, 

6  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  244,  3  Off.  Gaz.  30;  Howes 
v.  Nute,  12  Fed.  Gas.  No.  6,790,  4  Cliff.  173, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  263 ;  Ingels  v.  Mast,  13  Fed. 
Gas.  No.  7,035,  2  Ban.  &  A.  24,  1  Flipp.  424, 

7  Off.  Gaz.  836;   Kittle  v.  Merriam,  14  Fed. 
Gas.  No.  7,857,  2  Curt.  475;  Sloat  v.  Spring, 
22  Fed.  Gas.  No.  12,948a;  Washburn  v.  Gould, 
29  Fed.  Gas.  No.  17,214,  2  Robb  Pat.  Gas.  206, 
3  Story  122;  Russell  v.  Cowley,  1  C.  M.  &  R. 
864. 

1.  Ruete  v.  Elwell,  15  App.  Gas.  (D.  C.) 
21;  Ives  v.  Hamilton,  92  U.  S.  426,  23  L.  ed. 
'194;  Winans  v.  Denmead,  15  How.  (U.  S.) 
330,  14  L.  ed.  717;  Eck  v.  Kutz,  132  Fed.  758; 
Nutter  v.  Mossberg,  128  Fed.  55  [affirmed  in 
135  Fed.  95,  68  C.  C.  A.  257] ;  Severy  Process 
Co.  v.  Harper,  113  Fed.  581;  Gaisman  v.  Gal- 
lert,  105  Fed.  955 ;  Huntington  Dry-Pulverizer 
Co.  v.  Whitaker  Cement  Co.,  89  Fed.  323; 
Salomon  v.  Garvin  Mach.  Co.,  84  Fed.  195; 
Red  Jacket  Mfg.  Go.  v.  Davis,  82  Fed.  432, 
27  C.  C.  A.  204;  Consolidated  Fastener  Co. 
v.  Columbian  Fastener  Co.,  79-  Fed.  795; 
Beach  v.  Inman,  75  Fed.  840;  McBride  v. 
Kingman,  72  Fed.  908;  Loring  v.  Booth,  52 
Fed.  150;  Robbins  v.  Aurora  Watch  Co.,  43 
Fed.  521;  Fitch  -v.  Bragg,  8  Fed.  588;  Con- 
solidated Safety-Valve  Co.  v.  Crosby  Steam- 
Gauge,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Fed.  768;  Ames  v.  How- 
ard, 1  Fed.  Cas.  No,  326,  1  Robb  Pat.  Gas. 
689,  1  Sumn.  482;  Blake  v.  Stafford,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,504,  6  Blatchf.  195,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  294:  Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,516,  1  Cliff.  288;  Burden  v.  Corning,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,143,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  477; 
Coffin  v.  Ogden,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,950,  7 
Blatchf.  61,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  640  [affirmed 
in  18  Wall.  120,  21  L.  ed.  821];  Davoll  v. 
Brown,  -7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,662,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  303,  1  WToodb.  &  M.  53;  Francis  v.  Mel- 
lor,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,039,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
153,  1  Off.  Gaz.  48,  8  Phila.  (Pa.)  157;  Good- 
year v.  Barry,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,556,  2  Bond 
189,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  439;  Goodyear  v.  New 
Jersey  Central  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,563, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  626,  2  Wall.  Jr.  356;  Imlay 
V.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,012,  4  Blatchf.  227,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  340; 
Ingels  v.  Mast,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,033,  6  Fish. 


Pat.  Cas.  415 ;  Parker  v.  Sears,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,748,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93;  Parker  v.  Stiles, 
18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,749,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  319, 
5  McLean  44;  Pike  v.  Potter,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,162,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  55;  Potter  v. 
Holland,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,330,  4  Blatchf. 
238,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  382;  Ryan  v.  Goodwin, 
21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,186,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
725,  3  Sumn.  514;  Waterbury  Brass  Co.  0. 
New  York  Brass  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,256, 
3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  43;  Whipple  v.  Middlesex 
Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,520,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas, 
41;  Woodman  v.  Stimpson,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,979,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  98  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  10  Wall.  117,  19  L.  ed.  866] ; 
Bickford  v.  Skewes,  1  Q.  B.  938,  1  G.  &  D. 
736,  6  Jur.  167,  41  E.  C.  L.  848;  Neilson  v. 
Betts,  L.  R.  5  H.  L.  1,  40  L.  J.  Ch.  317,  19 
Wkly.  Rep.  1121. 

That  terms  are  given  reasonable,  not  tech- 
nically exact,  meaning  see  Kip-Armstrong 
Co.  v.  King  Phillip  Mills,  130  Fed.  28  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  132  Fed.  975,  66 
C.  C.  A.  45] ;  U.  S.  Repair,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Assy- 
rian Asphalt  Co.,  96  Fed.  235;  Union  R.  Co. 
v.  Sprague  Electric  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Fed.  82, 
31  C.  C.  A.  391 ;  A.  B.  Dick  Co.  v.  Wichelman, 
80  Fed.  519;  American  Sulphite  Co.  v.  How- 
land  Falls  Pulp  Co.,  80  Fed.  395,  25  C.  C.  A. 
500;  Johnson  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  75 
Fed.  668;  Thompson  v.  Jennings,  75  Fed.  572, 
21  C.  C.  A.  486;  Grier  v.  Castle,  17  Fed.  523; 
Chandler  v.  Ladd,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,593,  Mc- 
Arthur  Pat.  Cas.  493. 

That  regard  should  be  had  for  things,  not 
names,  see  Daylight  Prism  Co.  v.  Marcus 
Prism  Co.,  110  Fed.  980;  Palmer  Pneumatic 
Tire  Co.  v.  Lozier,  84  Fed.  659. 

Subtle  distinctions  will  not  be  made. — 
Davoll  v.  Brown,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,662,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  303,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  53;  Hen- 
derson v.  Cleveland  Co-operative  Stove  Co.,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,351,  2  Ban.  &  A.  604,  12  Off. 
Gaz.  4. 

Claim  to  result  will  be  construed  to  cover 
means  where  possible.  Expanded  Metal  Co.  v. 
St.  Louis  Bd.  of  Education,  103  Fed.  287; 
Henderson  v.  Cleveland  Co-operative  Stove 
Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,351,  2  Ban.  &  A.  604, 
12  Off.  Gaz.  4. 

2.  Davoll  v.  Brown,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,662, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  303,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  53. 

3.  Parker  v.  Sears,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,748, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93. 

4.  New  Departure  Bell  Co.  v.  Bevin  Bros. 
Mfg.    Co.,    64    Fed.    859    [reversed    on    other 

[X,  A,  3] 


934     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


employed   cannot   be  varied  by  construction.5      The  construction  must  be  in 
conformity  with  the  self-imposed  limitations  which  are  contained  in  the  claims.6 

4.  INTENTION  OF  INVENTOR.     The  intention  of  the  parties  in  formulating  the 
patent  is  entitled  to  great  consideration  when  it  can  be  determined  from   the 
record.7     The  court  will  look  to  the  manifest  design  in  order  to  remove  any 
ambiguity  arising  from  the  terms  employed  ;  but  this  ambiguity  must  not  be  such 
as  would  perplex  any  ordinary  mechanic  in  the  art  to  which  it  applies.8 

5.  PROCEEDINGS  IN  PATENT  OFFICE.     The  proceedings  in  the  patent  office  pend- 
ing an  application  are  not  as  a  general  rule  admissible  as  evidence  tending  to 
enlarge,  diminish,  or  vary  the  language  o2  the  claim  of  the  patent.9     An  amend- 
ment of  the  claim  which  comes  in  incidentally  and  in  reference  to  an  incidental 
matter  does  not  necessarily  exclude  a  liberal  interpretation  when  the  invention  is 
a  broad  one.10     Matters  which  have  been  duly  disclaimed, after  issue  of  the  patent 
cease  to  be  a  part  of  the  invention,  and  the  patent  is  then  to  be  construed  as 
though  they  had  never  been  included  in  the  description  of  the  invention  or  the 
claim  of  the  specification.11     Any  correspondence  between  the  inventor  and  the 
patent  office  prior  to  tne  grant  of  the  patent  is  inadmissible  to  enlarge,  diminish,  or 
vary  the  language  of  the  patent  afterward  issued,12  at  least  where  its  terms  are  not 


grounds  in  73  Fed.  469,  19  C.  C.  A.  534]; 
Electrical  Accumulator  Co.  v.  Brush  Electric 
Co.,  52  Fed.  130,  2  C.  C.  A.  682. 

5.  Westinghouse    Air    Brake    Co.    v.    New 
York  Air  Brake  Co.,  119-  Fed.  874,  56  C.  C.  A. 
404;    Schreiber,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Adams  Co., 
117  Fed.  830,  54  C.  C.  A.   128;   Bracewell  v. 
Passaic   Print   Works,    107    Fed.   467;    Peifer 
v.  Brown,   106  Fed.  938;    U.  S.  Glass  Co.  v. 
Atlas  Glass  Co.,  88  Fed.  493;  Edison  Electric 
Light  Co.  v.  E.  G.  Bernard  Co.,  88  Fed.  267; 
Chemical  Rubber  Co.  v.  Raymond  Rubber  Co., 
68  Fed.  570  [affirmed  in  71  Fed.  179,  18  C.  C. 
A.  31] ;  Holtzer  v.  Consolidated  Electric  Mfg. 
Co.,  60  Fed.  748    [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  67   Fed.  907,   15  C.  C.  A.  63] ;   Duff  Mfg. 
Co.  t7.  Forgie,  57  Fed.  748  [affirmed  in  59  Fed. 
772,  8  C.  C.  A.  261] ;  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
James,  20  Fed.  903;   Many  v.  Sizer,   16  Fed. 
Cas.   No.   9,057,    1   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   31;   Rich 
17.  Close,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,757,  8  Blatchf. 
41,    4    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    279;    Wintermute    v. 
Redington,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,896,   1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  239. 

Evidence  cannot  change  instrument  see 
Clark  v.  Adie,  2  App.  Cas.  423,  46  L.  J.  Ch. 
598,  37  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  1,  26  Wkly.  Rep.  45. 

6.  New  Departure  Bell  Co.  v.  Bevin  Bros. 
Mfg.    Co..   64   Fed.    859;    Judd  v.   Fowler,  61 
Fed.   821,    10  C.   C.  A.   100;    Groth  v.  Inter- 
national Postal   Supply  Co.,   61    Fed.   284,   9 
C.  C.  A.  507. 

The  remedy  for  unnecessary  limitations 
is  by  reissue  not  by  construction.  Pittsburg 
Meter  Co.  v.  Pittsburg  Supply  Co.,  109  Fed. 
644,  48  C.  C.  A.  580. 

7.  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Black 
River  Traction  Co.,  135  Fed.  759,  68  C.  C.  A. 
461;  Paxton  v.  Brinton,  107  Fed.  137;  Kur- 
sheedt    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Naday,    103    Fed.    948; 
Electric   Smelting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carborundum 
Co.,   102  Fed.  618,  42  C.  C.  A.  537;   Magic 
Light  Co.  v.  Economy  Gas-Lamp  Co.,  97  Fed. 
87 :  Blount  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bardsley,  75  Fed.  674, 
21  C.  C.  A.  495 ;  Duff  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Forgie,  57 
Fed.  748  [affirmed  in  59  Fed.  772,  8  C.  C.  A. 
261];    Bradley  v.  Dull,   19   Fed.  913;   Giant 

[X,  A,  3] 


Powder  Co.  v.  California  Vigorit  Powder  Co., 
4  Fed.  720,  6  Sawy.  508;  Roberts  v.  Schrei- 
ber, 2  Fed.  855;  Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic 
Fabric  Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,397,  3  Cliff. 
356,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  90,  1  Off.  Gaz.  91; 
Evans  v.  Eaton,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559,  Pet. 
C.  C.  322,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  68 ;  Page  v.  Ferry, 
18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,662,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
298;  Pike  v.  Potter,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,162, 
3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  55;  Union  Paper-Bag  Co.  v. 
Nixon,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,386,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  402,  4  Off.  Gaz.  31. 

Subsequent  declarations  of  patentee  cannot 
vary  instrument.  Union  Paper-Bag  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Pultz,  etc.,  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,392,  3  Ban.  &  A.  403,  15  Blatchf.  160,  15 
Off.  Gaz.  423. 

Mistake  as  to  theory  of  operation  is  not 
binding.— U.  S.  Mitis  Cd.  v.  Midvale  Steel 
Co.,  135  Fed.  103. 

8.  Union  Paper-Bag  Co.  v.  Nixon,  24  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  14,386,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  402,  4  Off. 
Gaz.  31. 

9.  Goodyear      Dental     Vulcanite      Co.      v. 
Gardiner,    11    Fed.    Cas.    No.    5,591,    3    Cliff. 
408,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  224. 

10.  Heywood   Bros.,   etc.,    Co.    v.    Syracuse 
Rapid  Transit  R.  Co.,  152  Fed.  453.    See  also 
Heap  v.  Greene,  91  Fed.  792,  34  C.  C.  A.  86; 
Reece  Button-Hole  Mach.  Co.  v.  Globe  Button- 
Hole  Mach.  Co.,  61  Fed.  958,  10  C.  C.  A.  194. 

Amendment  of  specifications  leaving  claim 
unchanged. —  Claims  of  a  patent  are  not  lim- 
ited by  the  amendment  of  the  specifications 
more  particularly  describing  the  device  shown 
in  the  drawings  to  meet  the  objections  of 
the  patent  office,  where  the  claims  themselves 
are  left  unchanged.  Manhattan  Gen.  Constr. 
Co.  v.  Helios-Upton  Co.,  135  Fed.  785. 

11.  Dunbar    v.    Myers,    94    U.    S.    187,    24 
L.    ed.    34;    Manhattan   Gen.    Constr.    Co.   v. 
Helios-Upton   Co.,    135    Fed.    785;    Bracewell 
v.  Passaic  Print  Works..  107  Fed.  467. 

12.  Goodyear     Dental     Vulcanite     Co.     v. 
Davis.  102  U.  S.  222,  26  L.  ed.  149;  Gaboon 
v.  Ring,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,292,  1  Cliff.  592,  1 
Fish.   Pat.   Cas.  397;   Goodyear  Dental  Vul- 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     935 


ambiguous.13  But  it  has  been  held  that  when  the  patent  bears  on  its  face  a  par- 
ticular construction,  such  a  construction  may  be. confirmed  by  what  the  patentee 
said  when  he  was  making  his  application.14  Formal  admissions  imposed  upon  the 
applicant  as  a  condition  precedent  to  the  allowance  of  a  patent  are  binding.15 
Argumentative  statements  of  counsel  in  the  course  of  proceedings  in  the  patent 
office  do  not  estop  the  patentee  from  claiming  what  is  clearly  granted  by  the  patent.16 
Mere  remarks  by  the  examiner  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings  do  not  estop  the 
patentee  from  claiming  the  construction  shown  by  the  specification  and  original 
claim.17  Where  it  is  in  evidence  from  the  record  of  the  patent  office  that  a  cer- 
tain construction  was  there  contemplated,  and  that  the  patent  would  not  other- 
wise have  been  granted,  no  objection  can  be  made  to  the  same  construction  of  it 
by  the  court  on  the  ground  that  such  construction  is  narrow,  and  will  render  the 
patent  practically  useless.18 

6.  OPINION  OF  EXPERTS.     The  court  is  not  bound  by  the  opinions  of  experts  in 
patent  cases  and  may  reject  them  where  they  do  not  seem  reasonable.19 

7.  STATE  OF  THE  ART.     A  patent  is  to  be  construed  in  the  light  of  the  state  of 
the  art  at  the  time  it  was  granted,20  and  it  has  been  very  generally  held  that  in 


canite  Co.  v.  Gardiner,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,591,  3  Cliff.  408,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  224; 
Piper  v.  Brown,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,180,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  175,  Holmes  20  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200]. 
But  see  Pike  v.  Potter,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,162,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  55,  holding  that  the 
correspondence  between  the  patent  office  and 
the  patentee  is  evidence,  at  least  in  a  court 
of  equity,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
limitation  placed  by  the  patentee  upon  his 
claims. 

Argumentative  suggestion. —  The  language 
of  the  patent  as  issued  may  not  be  contra- 
dicted by  mere  argumentative  suggestions 
made  by  the  applicant  in  his  communications 
to  the  patent  office,  especially  where  no 
change  is  made  in  the  claim.  Victor  Talk- 
ing Mach.  Co.  v.  American  Graphophone  Co., 
151  Fed.  601,  81  C.  C.  A.  145. 

13.  Sugar  Apparatus  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Yaryan 
Mfg.  Co.,  43  Fed.  140. 

Language  of  solicitor  employed  to  obtain 
patent. —  Where  the  specifications  of  the  ap- 
plication and  of  the  letters  patent  are  not 
ambiguous  and  are  capable  of  a  definite  con- 
struction, the  language  of  a  solicitor  em- 
ployed to  obtain  the  patent,  used  in  a  com- 
munication with  the  patent  office  to  convey 
an  idea  of  his  own,  will  not  override  the  lan- 
guage of  the  patent,  especially  where  there 
is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  idea  was 
ever  adopted  by  the  patent  office.  Wirt  v. 
Brown,  32  Fed.  283. 

14  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v. 
Davis,  102'  U.  S.  222,  26  L.  ed.  149.  See 
also  Victor  Talking  Mach.  Co.  v.  American 
Graphophone  Co.,  151  Fed.  601,  81  C.  C.  A. 
145. 

15.  Welsbach  Light  Co.  v.  Cremo  Incan- 
descent Light  Co.,  151  Fed.  1023,  81  C.  C.  A. 
683  [affirming  145  Fed.  521]  ;  Victor  Talking 
Mach.  Co.  f.  American  Graphophone  Co., 
151  Fed.  601,  81  C.  C.  A.  145,  holding  that 
when  claims  are  rejected  on  references  cited 
against  them,  the  applicant  is  called  upon 
to  exercise  his  election  between  insistence 
and  appeal,  or  desistance  and  acquiescence, 
and,  if  he  acquiesces,  the  public  is  entitled 


to  the  benefit  of  the  limitations  and  admis- 
sions imposed  upon  him  as  a  condition  pre- 
cedent to  the  allowance  of  the  patent. 

Where  the  patent  is  not  for  a  broad  in- 
vention but  merely  for  a  change  of  form, 
admissions  contained  in  a  file-wrapper  and 
its  contents  in  respect  to  amendments  made 
upon  the  citation  of  references  involving 
the  issue  of  novelty  constitute  an  estoppel 
against  the  patentee  in  the  interpretation 
of  his  claims.  Richardson  v.  American  Pin 
Co.,  73  Fed.  476. 

16.  Britton  v.  White  Mfg.  Co.,  61  Fed.  93. 
See    also    Consolidated    Fastener    Co.    v.    Co- 
lumbian Fastener  Co.,  79  Fed.  795. 

The  use  of  an  unsound  and  unsuccessful 
argument  by  the  inventor's  solicitor  with  re- 
spect to  a  rejected  claim  will  not  have  the 
effect  of  imposing  a  constructive  limitation 
upon  the  claim  allowed  Societe"  Anonyme 
Usine  J.  Cleret  v.  Rehfuss,  75  Fed.  657. 

The  claims  of  a  patent  are  not  narrowed 
by  statements  made  on  an  argument  by  coun- 
sel before  the  patent  office  to  obtain  a  re- 
consideration after  the  application  has  been 
rejected,  where  no  changes  are  made  in  the 
claims.  Boyer  t/.  Keller  Tool  Co.,  127  Fed. 
130,  62  C.  C.  A.  244. 

17.  Acme  Flexible  Clasp  Co.  v.  Gary  Mfg. 
Co.,  96  Fed.  344,  99  Fed.  500.     See  also  Con- 
solidated Fastener  Co.  v.  Columbian  Fastener 
Co.,  79  Fed.  795. 

18.  Geis  v.  Kimber,  36  Fed.  105. 

19.  Computing  Scale  Co.  v.  Keystone  Store- 
Service  Co.,  88  Fed.  788;  Norton  v.  Jensen, 
49  Fed.  859,   1   C.   C.  A.  452;   Union  Paper- 
Bag  Co.  v.  Nixon,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.   14,386, 
6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  402,  4  Off.  Gaz.  31. 

30.  Simplex  Railway  Appliance  Co.  v. 
Wands,  115  Fed.  517,  53  C.  C.  A.  171;  Allen 
v.  Grimes,  89  Fed.  869;  New  Departure  Bell 
Co.  v.  Corbin,  88  Fed.  901;  Miller  Co.  v. 
Meriden  Bronze  Co.,  80  Fed.  523;  Elgin  Co- 
operative Butter-Tub  Co.  v.  Creamery  Pack- 
age Mfg.  Co.,  80  Fed.  293,  25  C.  C.  A.  426; 
Rowlett  v.  Anderson,  76  Fed.  827;  Missouri 
Lamp,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stempel,  75  Fed.  583 ; 
Koch  v.  Bolz,  42  Fed.  454;  Parsons  V.  Col- 
gate, 15  Fed.  600,  21  Blatchf.  171;  Neacy  v. 

[X,  A,  7] 


936     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


respect  of  the  state  of  the  art  the  court  may  take  judicial  notice  of  matters  of 
common  knowledge.21 

8.  PATENT  AS  NOTICE.     Everyone  is  bound  to  take  notice  of  a  patent,  since  the 
record  thereof  in  the  patent  office  is  legal  notice  to  all  the  world.22 

9.  QUESTIONS  FOR  COURT  AND  JURY.     The  scope  and  meaning  of  a  patent  is  a 
matter  of  law  for  the  court,  and  the  application  of  the  law  to  the  facts  of  the  case 
is  for  the  jury.23     It  is  for  the  court  to  construe  the  patent  and  instruct  the  jury 
as  to  its  meaning.24 

B.  Limitation  of  Claims  —  1.  IN  GENERAL.     The  protection  furnished  by  a 
patent  is  measured  by  what  is  set  forth  in  the  claims.25     Everything  not  covered 


Allis,  13  Fed.  874;  Barker  v.  Todd,  13  Fed. 
473;  Scott  v.  Evans,  11  Fed.  726;  Root  v. 
Lamb,  7  Fed.  222 ;  Giant  Powder  Co.  v.  Cali- 
fornia Vigorit  Powder  Co.,  4  Fed.  720,  6 
Sawy.  508;  Estabrook  v.  Dunbar,  8  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,535,  2  Ban.  &  A.  427,  10  Off.  Gaz. 
909;  Huggins  v.  Hubby,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,839;  Mann  v.  Bayliss,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,034,  10  Off.  Gaz.  113,  789;  Pitts  v.  Wemple, 
19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,194,  1  Biss.  87,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  10;  Sprague  v.  Adriance,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,248,  3  Ban.  &  A.  124,  14  Off. 
Gaz.  308.  And  see  infra,  X,  B,  6,  7. 

Evidence  as  to  meaning  of  terms  admitted 
see  Betts  v.  Menzies,  10  H.  L.  Cas.  117,  9 
Jur.  N.  S.  29,  31  L.  J.  Q.  B.  233,  7  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  110,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  1,  11  Eng. 
Reprint  970. 

Particular  patents  construed  to  be  limited 
by  the  prior  art  in  order  to  sustain  them  at 
all.— Dunham  v.  Dennison  Mfg.  Co.,  154  U.  S. 
103,  14  S.  Ct.  986,  38  L.  ed.  924;  Pope  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Gormully,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  144  U.  S. 
238,  12  S.  Ct.  641,  36  L.  ed:  419;  'PbxEnix 
Caster  Co.  v.  Spiegel,  133  U.  S.  360,  10  S.  Ct. 
409,  33  L.  ed.  663;  Ashcroft  v.  Boston,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  97  U.  S.  189,  24  L.  ed.  982;  Brill 
v.  Peckham  Motor  Truck,  etc.,  108  Fed.  267, 
47  C.  C.  A.  315;  Consolidated  Store-Service 
Co.  v.  Siegel  Cooper  Co.,  107  Fed.  716,  46 
C.  C.  A.  599;  Sprague  Electric  R.,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  102  Fed.  761,  42 
C.  C.  A.  612;  Santa  Clara  Valley  Mill,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Prescott,  102  Fed.  501,  42  C.  C.  A. 
477;  Empire  Target  Co.  v.  Cleveland  Target 
Co.,  102  Fed.  354,  42  C.  C.  A.  393;  Rauh  v. 
Guinzburg,  101  Fed.  1007,  42  C.  C.  A.  139; 
Dodge  v.  Ohio  Valley  Pulley  Works,  101  Fed. 
581;  Regina  Music-Box  Co.  v.  Hasse,  97 
Fed.  617;  Ball,  etc.,  Fastener  Co.  v.  A.  Ed- 
garton  Mfg.  Co.  96  Fed.  489,  37  C.  C.  A. 
523 ;  Davey  Pegging-Mach.  Co.  v.  Prouty, 
96  Fed.  336;  Electric  Gas  Lighting  Co.  v. 
Fuller,  59  Fed.  1003,  8  C.  C.  A.  442;  Curtis 
v.  Atlanta  St.  R.  Co.,  56  Fed.  596;  St.  Paul 
Plow- Works  v.  Deere,  54  Fed.  501;  Overman 
v.  Warwick  Cycle  Mfg.  Co.,  54  Fed.  496 
[affirmed  in  61  Fed.  986,  10  C.  C.  A.  222]; 
National  Harrow  Co.  V.  Hanby,  54  Fed.  493; 
Briggs  v.  Central  Ice  Co.  54  Fed.  376  [af- 
firmed in  60  Fed.  87,  8  C.  C.  A.  480]  ;  Blair 
Camera  Co.  v.  Barker,  53  Fed.  483;  Baumer 
v.  Will,  53  Fed.  373;  Pettibone  v.  Stanford, 
53  Fed.  118,  3  C.  C.  A.  469;  Actiebolaget 
Separator  v.  Sharpless,  50  Fed.  87;  Ricks 
v.  Craig,  48  Fed.  169;  Zan  v.  Quong  Sang 
Lung,  47  Fed.  901;  Johnson  Co.  v.  Pacific 
Rolling  Mills  Co.,  47  Fed.  586  [affirmed  in 

[X,  A,  7] 


51  Fed.  762,  2  C.  C.  A.  506] ;  Firman  v.  New 
Haven  Clock  Co.,  44  Fed.  205; 'Root  v.  Sioux 
City  Cable  R.  Co.,  42  Fed.  500;  Reed  v. 
Smith,  40  Fed.  882;  Hatch  v.  Towne,  35 
Fed.  139;  Dodds  v.  Stoddard,  17  Fed.  645; 
Putnam  v.  Von  Hofe,  6  Fed.  897,  19  Blatchf. 
63 ;  Decker  v.  Griffith,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,725, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  178,  13  Blatchf.  187,  8  Off.  Gaz. 
944. 

21.  Richards    v.    Chase    Elevator    Co.,    159 
U.  S.  477,  16  S.  Ct.  53,  40  L.  ed.  225;  Black 
Diamond  Coal-Min.  Co.  17.  Excelsior  Coal  Co., 
156  U.  S.  611,  15  S.  Ct.  482,  39  L.  ed.  553; 
Slawson  v.  Grand  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  U.  S. 
649,  2  S.  Ct.  663,  27  L.  ed.  576;  Terhune  v. 
Phillips,  99  U.  S.  592,  25  L.  ed.  293;  Brown 
t;.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200;  American 
Fibre-Chamois  Co.  v.  Buckskin-Fibre  Co.,  72 
Fed.  508,  18  C.  C.  A.  662;  Butte  City  St.  R, 
Co.  v.  Pacific  Cable  R.   Co.,  60  Fed.  410,  9 
C.  C.  A.  41. 

22.  Eclipse  Bicycle  Co.  v.  Farrow,  16  App. 
Cas.    (D.  C.)    468*;  National  Car-Brake  Shoe 
Co.  v.  Terre  Haute  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Fed.  514. 

23.  Teese    v.    Phelps,    23    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
13,819,  McAllister  48. 

24.  Simplex   R.   Appliance    Co.   v.   Wands, 
115   Fed.   517,   53    C.   C.  A.    171;    Batten   v. 
Clayton,   2   Fed.   Cas.   No.    1,105;    Cahoon   v. 
Ring,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,292,  1   Cliff.  592,   1 
Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    397;    Conover   v.    Roach,    6 
Fed.   Cas.  No.   3,125,  4  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.    12; 
Davis   v.   Palmer,   7   Fed.   Cas.   No.   3,645,   2 
Brock.  298,   1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  518;   Emerson 
v.  Hogg,   8   Fed.   Cas.   No.  4,440,   2   Blatchf. 
1,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  77;  Parker  v.  Hulme,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,740,   1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  44; 
Serrell  v.  Collins,   21   Fed.  Cas.   No.    12,672, 

1  Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   289;    Vance   v.   Campbell, 
28   Fed.   Cas.   No.    16,837,    1   Fish.  Pat.   Cas. 
483    [reversed  on  other  grounds  in   1   Black 
427,  17  L.  ed.  168]. 

That  question  may  be  submitted  to  jury 
where  there  is  parol  evidence  as  to  meaning 
of  terms  see  Silsby  v.  Foote,  14  How.  (U.  S.) 
218,  14  L.  ed.  394;  Davoll  v.  Brown,  7  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,662,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  303,  1 
Woodb.  &  M.  53;  Ransom  v.  New  York,  20 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,573,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  252; 
Washburn  v.  Gould,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,214, 

2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  206,  3  Story  122. 

25.  Grant   v.    Walter,    148    U.    S.    547,    13 
S.  Ct.  699,  37  L.  ed.  552;  White  v.  Dunbar, 
119   U.   S.   47,  7   S.   Ct.   72,   30   L.  ed.   303; 
Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Greenleaf,   117  U.  S. 
554,   6    S.   Ct.   846,   29   L.   ed.   952;    Western 
Electric  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ansonia  Brass,  etc.,  Co., 
114  U.  S.  447,  5  S.  Ct.  941,  29  L.  ed.  210; 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     937 


by  the  claim  is  disclaimed,26  and  the  patentee  is  bound  by  limitations  contained 
therein.27  While  terms  used  must  be  so  construed  where  possible  to  sustain  the 
patent  and  protect  the  real  invention,28  limitations  not  stated  in  a  claim  will  not 


Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Mellon,  104  U.  S. 
112,  26  L.  ed.  639;  U.  S.  Peg- Wood,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  B.  F.  Sturtevant  Co.,  125  Fed.  378,  60 
C.  C.  A.  244;  General  Fire  Extinguisher  Co. 
v.  Mailers,  110  Fed.  529,  49  C.  C.  A.  138; 
Simonds  Rolling-Mach.  Co.  v.  Hathorn  Mfg. 
Co.,  90  Fed.  201;  Griffith  v.  Shaw,  89  Fed. 
313;  Kelly  v.  Clow,  89  Fed.  297,  32  C.  C.  A. 
205;  New  Departure  Bell  Co.  v.  Corbin,  88  Fed. 
901 ;  U.  S.  Glass  Co.  v.  Atlas  Glass  Co.,  88  Fed. 
493;  Tiemann  v.  Kraatz,  85  Fed.  437,  29  C.  C. 
A.  257 ;  Walder  v.  Ulrich,  83  Fed.  477 ;  Monroe 
v.  McGreer,  81  Fed.  954;  Olmsted  v.  An- 
drews, 77  Fed.  835,  23  C.  C.  A.  488 ;  Thomas 
v.  Rocker  Spring  Co.,  77  Fed.  420,  23  C.  C.  A. 
211;  Long  v.  Pope  Mfg.  Co.,  75  Fed.  835,  21 
C.  C.  A.  533;  Missouri  Lamp,  etc.,  Co.  V. 
Stempel,  75  Fed.  583;  McBride  v.  Kingman, 
72  Fed.  908;  National  Mach.  Co.  v.  Wheeler, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  72  Fed.  185;  Kennedy  v.  Solar 
Refining  Co.,  69  Fed.  715;  Wells  v.  Curtis, 
66  Fed.  318,  13  C.  C.  A.  494;  Reece  Button- 
Hole  Mach.  Co.  v.  Globe  Button-Hole  Mach. 
Co.,  61  Fed.  958,  10  C.  C.  A.  194;  Stutz  v. 
Robson,  54  Fed.  506;  Brush  Electric  Co.  v. 
Ft.  Wayne  Electric  Light  Co.,  40  Fed.  826; 
Delaware  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Packer,  1  Fed. 
851;  McMillan  V.  Rees,  1  Fed.  722;  Tinker  v. 
Wilber  Eureka  Mower,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  1  Fed. 
138;  Johnson  v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Gas.  No.  7,411, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  351;  Kidd  v.  Spence,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,755,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  37; 
Rich  v.  Close,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,757,  8 
Blatchf.  41,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  279;  Whipple 
v.  Baldwin  Mfg.  Co.,  29-  Fed.  Cas.  No.  .17,514, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  29. 

Forms  coming  within  the  terms  of  a  claim 
as  well  as  the  form  disclosed  are  included 
within  the  claim.  National  Enameling,  etc., 
Co.  v.  New  England  Enameling  Co.,  151  Fed. 
19,  80  C.  C.  A.  485  [reversing  139  Fed.  643]  ; 
Manhattan  Gen.  Constr.  Co.  v.  Helios-Upton 
Co.,  135  Fed.  785;  Oehrle  -v.  William  H. 
Horstmann  Co.,  131  Fed.  487;  Albright  v. 
Langfeld.  131  Fed.  473;  Smeeth  v.  Perkins, 
125.  Fed.  285,  60  C.  C.  A.  199;  National  Hol- 
low Brake-Beam  Co.  v.  Interchangeable  Brake- 
Beam  Co.,  106  Fed.  693,  45  C.  C.  A.  544; 
Krajewski  v.  Pharr,  105  Fed.  514,  44  C.  C.  A. 
572;  Metallic  Extraction  Co.  v.  Brown,  104 
Fed.  345,  43  C.  C.  A.  568;  U.  S.  Mitis  Co. 
v.  Carnegie  Steel  Co.,  89'  Fed.  343;  American 
Dunlop  Tire  Co.  v.  Erie  Rubber  Co.,  66  Fed. 
558;  Consolidated  Bunging  Apparatus  Co.  v. 
Metropolitan  Brewing  Co.,  60  Fed.  93,  8 
C.  C.  A.  485;  Sugar  Apparatus  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Yaryan  Mfg.  Co.,  43  Fed.  140;  Roemer  v. 
Neuman,  26  Fed.  102.  See  supra,  V,  B,  3. 

26.  Kinloch  Tel.  Co.  0.  Western  Electric 
Co.,  113  Fed.  652,  51  C.  C.  A.  362;  McBride 
v.  Kingman,  97  Fed.  217,  38  C.  C.  A.  123; 
Adams  Electric  R.  Co.  v.  Lindell  R.  Co.,  77 
Fed.  432,  23  C.  C.  A.  223. 

Where  an  alleged  element  or  characteristic 
feature  of  an  invention  is  not  necessarily  in- 
herent in  the  invention  itself,  the  failure  of 


the  patentee  to  refer  to  it  is  persuasive  evi- 
dence that  it  is  not  within  the  scope  of  his 
invention,  and,  not  being  disclosed  to  the 
public,  it  should  not  be  read  into  the  patent. 
Edison  Gen.  Electric  Co.  v.  Crouse-Hinds 
Electric  Co.,  152  Fed.  437,  81  C.  C.  A.  579 
[reversing  146  Fed.  539]. 

Error  in  reference  to  prior  art. —  If  a  pat- 
entee in  his  specification  describes  in  appro- 
priate language  a  real  invention  and  properly 
sets  forth  his  claim  to  that  invention,  he  is 
not  to  be  deprived  of  it  merely  because  he 
has  inadvertently  erred  in  his  reference  to  the 
prior  art.  Babcock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  North  Ameri- 
can Dredging  Co.,  151  Fed.  265. 

27.  Coupe    v.    Royer,    155    U.    S.    565,    15 
S.  Ct.   199,  39  L.  ed.  263;  Wright  v.  Yueng- 
ling,  155  U.  S.  47,  15  S.  Ct.  1,  39  L.  ed.  64; 
Watson  v.  Cincinnati,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  132  U.  S. 
161,  10  S.  Ct.  45,  33  L.  ed.  295;   Yale  Lock 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sargent,  117  U.  S.  373,  6  S.  Ct. 
931,   29   L.  ed.   950;    Fay  v.   Cordesman,   109 
U.  S.  408,  3  S.  Ct.  236,  27  L.  ed.  979;  Durfee 
v.  Bawo,  118  Fed.  853;  Peifer  v.  Brown,  106 
Fed.    938;    Consolidated   Store-Service   Co.    v. 
Seybold,  105  Fed.  978,  45  C.  C.  A.  152;  Dodge 
V.  Ohio  Valley  Pulley  Works,  101  Fed.  581; 
Starrett   v.   J.   Stevens   Arms,  etc.,    Co.,    100 
Fed.  93,  40  C.  C.  A.  289 ;  Seabury  v.  Johnson, 
76    Fed.    456;    Muller   v.    Lodge,    etc.,   Mach. 
Tool   Co.,   69-  Fed.    738    {affirmed  in   77   Fed. 
621,  23  C.  C.  A.  357]  ;  Pettibone  v.  Stanford, 
53  Fed.  118,  3  C.  C.  A.  469;  Celluloid  Mfg. 
Co.   v.   Arlington    Mfg.    Co.,    52    Fed.    740,    3 
C.  C.  A.  269 ;  Williams  v.  Stolzenbach,  23  Fed. 
39;    Le   Fever  v.  Remington,   13  Fed.  86,   21 
Blatchf.  80 ;  Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,151,  1  Ban.  &  A.  520,  6  Biss.  203  [affirmed 
in  94  U.   S.   288,  24  L.  ed.    103];   Hawes   v. 
Gage,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,237,  5  Off.  Gaz.  494; 
Rich  v.  Lippincott,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,758, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1,  1  Pittsb.   (Pa.)  31. 

A  patent  cannot  be  given  a  construction 
broader  than  its  terms,  in  order  to  cover 
something  which  might  have  been  claimed, 
but  was  not.  Universal  Brush  Co.  v.  Sonn, 
154  Fed.  665,  83  C.  C.  A.  422  [reversing  146 
Fed.  517]. 

Statements  of  function  in  claims  are  bind- 
ing. Masseth  v.  Larkin,  111  Fed.  409;  Thom- 
son Meter  Co.  v.  National  Meter  Co.,  106  Fed. 
519. 

28.  Johnson  v.  Willimantic  Linen  Co.,  33 
Conn.    436;    Miel    v.    Young,    29    App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)  481;  Andrews  v.  Nilson,  27  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)    451;    Consolidated  Rubber  Tire  Co. 
v.  Firestone  Tire,  etc.,  Co.,  151  Fed.  237,  80 
C.  C.  A.  589  [affirming  147  Fed.  739] ;  Eata- 
brook   v.   Dunbar,   8    Fed.   Cas.   No.   4,535,   2 
Ban.  &  A.  427,  10  Off.  Gaz.  909;    Goodyear 
Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Davis,   10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,589,  3  Ban.  &  A.  115,  12  Off.  Gaz.  No. 
14  [affirmed  in  102  U.  S.  222,  26  L.  ed.  149] ; 
Henderson    v.    Cleveland    Co-Operative    Store 
Co.,    11    Fed.    Cas.   No.    6,351,    2   Ban.   &  -A. 
604,  12  Off.  Gaz.  4.    See  supra,  X,  A,  2. 

[X,  B,  1] 


938     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


be  read  into  a  claim   for   the   purpose   of   making  out   a   case   of   novelty   or 
infringement.29 

2.  CLAIMS  CONSTRUED  BY  SPECIFICATIONS.  The  meanings  of  terms  used  in  the 
claim  are  to  be  determined  by  reference  to  the  specification,30  and  specific  refer- 
ences in  the  claim  to  the  specification  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  warrant  its  con- 
sideration.31 While  specifications  may  be  looked  to  to  determine  the  meaning  of 
the  claim,32  they  cannot  change  the  claim.33 


A  strict  construction  should  not  be  re- 
sorted to,  if  the  result  would  be  a  limitation 
on  the  actual  invention,  unless  it  is  required 
by  the  language  of  the  claim.  W'agner  Type- 
writer Co.  v.  Wyckoff,  151  Fed.  585,  81 
C.  C.  A.  129  [modifying  138  Fed.  108]. 

29.  McCarty  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  160 
U.  S.  110,  16  S.  Ct.  240,  40  L.  ed.  358;  Wol- 
lensak  v.  Sargent,   151  U.  S.  221,   14  S.  Ct. 
291,   38   L.   ed.    137;    Western  Electric  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Ansonia  Brass  Co.,   114  U.  S.  447,  5 
S.  Ct.  941,  29  L.  ed.  210;  Electric  Smelting, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Pittsburg  Reduction  Co.,  125  Fed. 
926,  60  C.  C.  A.  636;  Metallic  Extraction  Co. 
1?.   Brown,    110   Fed.   665,   49    C.   C.   A.    147; 
Santa   Clara   Valley  Mill,  etc.,   Co.   v.   Pres- 
cott,  102  Fed.  501,  42  C.  C.  A.  477;  Parsons 
v.   Seelye,    100   Fed.   455,   40   C.    C.   A.   486; 
Lappin    Brake-Shoe  Co.    v.    Corning    Brake- 
Shoe    Co.,    94    Fed.    162;    Wilson   v.   McCor- 
mick  Harvesting  Mach.  Co.,  92  Fed.  167,  34 
C.  C.  A.  280;   Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Citi- 
zens' Tel.  Co.,  89  Fed.  670;  Doig  v.  Suther- 
land,   87    Fed.    991;    Stearns   v.    Russell,    85 
Fed.  218,  29  C.  C.  A.  121;  Paul  Boynton  Co. 
v.  Morris,  82  Fed.  440   [affirmed  in  87  Fed. 

,225,  30  C.  C.  A.  617];  Royer  v.  Schultz 
Belting  Co.,  28  Fed.  8<50;  Roemer  v.  Neu- 
mann, 26  Fed.  102;  Couse  v.  Johnson,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,288,  4  Ban.  &  A.  501,  16  Off.  Gaz. 
719.  Compare  Sanders  v.  Hancock,  128  Fed. 
424,  63  C.  C.  A.  166;  Canda  v.  Michigan 
Malleable  Iron  Co.,  123  Fed.  95;  Wellman  f. 
Midland  Steel  Co.,  106  Fed.  221;  Miller  v. 
Mawhinney  Last  Co.,  96  Fed.  248. 

30.  Andrews  v.  Nilson,  27  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
451 ;  Knapp  v.  Morss,  150  U.  S.  221,  14  S.  Ct. 
81,  37  L.  ed.  1059;  McClain  v.  Ortmeyer,  141 
U.  S.  419,  12  S.  Ct.  76,  35  L.  ed.  800;  Haines 
v.  McLaughlin,  135  U.  S.  584,  10  S.  Ct.  876, 
34  L.  ed.  290;   Howe  Mach.  Co.  v.  National 
Needle  Co.,  134  U.  S.  388,  10  S.  Ct.  570,  33 
L.  ed.  963;  Snow  I/.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
121  U.  S.  617,  7  S.  Ct.  1343,  30  L.  ed.  1004; 
White  v.  Dunbar,  119  U.  S.  47,  7  S.  Ct.  72, 
30  L.  ed.   303;   Yale  Lock  Co.  v.  Greenleaf, 
117  U.  S.  554,  6  S.  Ct.  846,  29  L.  ed.  952; 
Lehigh  Valley  R.   Co.  v.  Mellon,    104  U.  S. 
112,  26  L.  ed.   639;   Merrill  v.  Yeomans,  94 
U.  S.  568,  24  L.  ed.  235;  Fuller  v.  Yentzer, 
94  U.  S.  288,  24  L.  ed.   103;   Hailes  v.  Van 
Wormer,   20    Wall.    (U.    S.)    353,   22   L.   ed. 
241;  Mitchell  v.  Tilghman,  19  Wall.   (U.  S.) 
287,  22  L.  ed.  125;  Turrill  v.  Michigan  South- 
ern,  etc.,  R.   Co.,    1    Wall.    (U.    S.)    491,    17 
L.   ed.    668;    Robins    Conveying    Belt    Co.    ?;. 
American  Road  Mach.  Co.,  145  Fed.  923,  76 
C.  C.  C.  461   [affirming  142  Feu.  221];  Stil- 
well-Bierce,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Eufau^a   Cotton   Oil 
Co.,  117  Fed.  410,  54  C.  C.  A.  584;  Lyons  v. 
Drucker,    106    Fed.    416,    45    C.    C.    A.    368; 

[X,  B,  1] 


Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.  t?.  Aluminum  Stopper 
Co.,  100  Fed.  849 ;  Soehner  v.  Favorite  Store, 
etc.,  Co.,  84  Fed.  182,  28  C.  C.  A.  317;  Adams 
Electric  R.  Co.  v.  Lindell  R.  Co.,  77  Fed. 
432,  23  C.  C.  A.  223;  Gould  Coupler  Co.  v. 
Trojan  Car-Coupler  Co.,  74  Fed.  794,  21 
C.  C.  A.  97;  American  Fibre-Chamois  Co.  v. 
Port  Huron  Fibre-Garment  Mfg.  Co.,  72  Fed. 
516,  18  C.  C.  A.  670;  Chemical  Rubber  Co.  v. 
Raymond  Rubber  Co.,  68  Fed.  570;  Groth  v. 
International  Postal  Supply  Co.,  61  Fed.  284, 
9  C.  C.  A.  507;  La  Rue  v.  Western  Electric 
Co.,  28  Fed.  85;  Hancock  Inspirator  Co.  y. 
Jenks,  21  Fed.  911;  Evans  v.  Kelly,  13  Fed. 
903,  9  Biss.  251;  Matthews  v.  Shoneberger, 
4  Fed.  635,  18  Blatchf.  357;  Holly  v.  Ver- 
gennes  Mach.  Co.,  4  Fed.  74,  18  Blatchf.  327; 
Bryan  v.  Stevens,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,066a; 
Carter  v.  Messinger,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,478, 
11  Blatchf.  34;  Coffin  v.  Ogden,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,950,  7  Blatchf.  61,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
640  [affirmed  in  18  Wall.  120,  21  L.  ed.  821] ; 
Estabrook  v.  Dunbar,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,535. 
2  Ban.  &  A.  427,  10  Off.  Gaz.  909;  Francis 
v.  Mellar,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,039,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  153,  1  Off.  Gaz.  48,  8  Phila.  (Pa.)  157; 
Hayden  v.  Suffolk  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,261,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  86  [affirmed  in  3 
Wall.  315,  18  L.  ed.  76];  Johnson  v.  Root,  13 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,411,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  351; 
King  v.  Gedney,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,795,  Mc- 
Arthur  Pat.  Cas.  443;  Morris  v.  Barrett.  17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,827,  1  Bond  254,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  461;  Parker  v.  Stiles,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,749,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  319,  5  McLean  44; 
Pitts  v.  WTemple,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,194, 
1  Biss.  87,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  10;  Ransom  v. 
New  York,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,573,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  252;  Roberts  v.  Dickey,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,899,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  532,  1 
Off.  Gaz.  4,  4  Brewst.  (Pa.)  260;  Whipple 
v.  Baldwin  Mfg.  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17-,514, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  29. 

Provisional  specification  cannot  be  used  to 
enlarge  the  meaning  of  the  complete  specifi- 
cation. Mackelcan  v.  Rennie,  13  C.  B.  N.  S. 
52,  106  E.  C.  L.  52. 

31.  National  Meter  Co.  v.  Neptune  Meter 
Co.,  122  Fed.  75;   Francis  v.  Mellar,  9  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,039,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  153,  1  Off. 
Gaz.  48,  8  Phila.  (Pa.)    157. 

32.  Krajewski  v.  Pharr,   105  Fed.  514,  44 
C.  C.  A.  572;  Electric  Smelting,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Carborundum  Co.,  102  Fed.  618,  42  C.  C.  A. 
537;  Melvin  v.  Potter,  91  Fed.  151;  Bennett 
v.  Schooley,  75  Fed.  392. 

33.  Coburn     Trolley-Track     Mfg.     Co.     v. 
Chandler,   91    Fed.   260;    Campbell   Printing- 
Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Duplex  Printing-Press  Co., 
86  Fed.  315;  Kidd  v.  Horry,  33  Fed.  712  [af- 
firmed in  145  U.  S.  643,   12  S.  Ct.  983,  36 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     939 


3.  EFFECT  OF  WORDS  «•  SUBSTANTIALLY  AS  DESCRIBED  "  IN  CLAIM.     Such  words  as 
"  substantially  as  described  "  placed  at  the  end  of  a  claim  do  not  have  the  effect 
of  limiting  the  claim  to  precisely  what  is  described  and  shown,84  but  mean  merely 
that  the  specification  and  drawings  are  to  be  looked  to  in  determining  the  mean- 
ing and  scope  of  the  terms  used.35     The  words  do  limit  the  claim  if  necessary  to 
sustain  it  or  to  cover  the  real  invention.36     They  are  implied  in  all  claims  whether 
they  are  actually  present  or  not.37 

4.  REFERENCE  LETTERS.     The  use  in  the  claims  of  letters  of  reference  appear- 
ing in  the  drawing  as  representing  parts  of  the  apparatus  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
limiting  the  claim  to  the  precise  form  of  those  parts  unless  such  limitation  is 
necessary  in  order  to  make  the  claim  patentable  over  the  prior  art.38 

5.  EQUIVALENTS.     A  patentee  is  entitled  to  hold  as  inf ringer  not  merely  one 
who  makes  or  uses  a  device  having  the  specific  elements  disclosed  and  claimed  by 
him,  but  any  one  who  makes  or  uses  a  device  having  elements  which  are  known 
equivalents  of  those  claimed.39     The  things,  however,  must  be  known  equivalents 


L.  ed.  857] ;  Railway  Register  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  33  Fed.  31  {.affirmed  in 
149  U.  S.  783,  13  S.  Ct.  1051,  37  L.  ed.  964] ; 
Becker  v.  Hastings,  22  Fed.  827;  McKesson 
v.  Carnrick,  9  Fed.  44,  19  Blatchf.  158;  Det- 
mold  v.  Reeves,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,831,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  127. 

34.  Hobbs  v.  Beach,  180  U.  S.  383,  21  S.  Ct. 
409,  45  L.  ed.  586;  McCarty  v.  Lehigh  Valley 
R.  Co.,  160  U.  S.  110,  16  S.  Ct.  240,  40  L.  ed. 
358;  American  Can  Co.  v.  Hickmott  Aspara- 
gus Canning  Co.,  142  Fed.  141,  73  C.  C.  A. 
359 ;  Boyer  v.  Keller  Tool  Co.,  127  Fed.  130, 
62  C.  C.  A.  244 ;  General  Electric  Co.  v.  Inter- 
national Specialty  Co.,  126  Fed.  755,  61  C.  C. 
A.   329;   Lowrie  v.   H.   A.  Meldrum  Co.,   124 
Fed.   761    [reversed  on  other  grounds  in   130 
Fed.  886,  65   C.   C.  A.   194]  ;   Diamond  Drill, 
etc.,    Co.    v.   Kelly,    120    Fed.   289;    Beach   v. 
Hobbs,  92  Fed.  146,  34  C.  C.  A.  248 ;  Boynton 
Co.    -v.    Morris   Chute    Co.,    87    Fed.    225,    30 
C.  C.  A.  617;  Goshen  Sweeper  Co.  v.  Bissell 
Carpet-Sweeper  Co.,  72  Fed.  67,  19  C.  C.  A. 
13 ;  Westinghouse  v.  New  York  Air-Brake  Co., 
59    Fed.    581    [modified    in    63    Fed.    962,    11 
C.  C.  A.  528]  ;  Lorillard  v.  McDowell,  15  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  8,510,  2  Ban.  &  A.  531,  11  Off.  Gaz. 
640,  13  Phila.  (Pa.)   461. 

35.  Brown  v.  Davis,  116  U.  S.  237,  6  S.  Ct. 
379,  29  L.  ed.  659;    Seymour  v.  Osborne,   11 
Wall.    (U.    S.)    516,    20   L.    ed.   33;    Scott  v. 
Fisher    Knitting    Mach.    Co.,    139    Fed.    137 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  145  Fed.  915, 
76    C.    C.    A.    447]  ;     Fruit-Cleaning    Co.    v. 
Fresno     Home-Packing     Co.,     94     Fed.     845; 
Campbell    v.    Richardson,    76    Fed.    976,    22 
C.   C.   A.  669;    Columbus  Watch  Co.  v.  Rob- 
bins,  64   Fed.   384,    12   C.   C.   A.    174;    West- 
inghouse 1?.  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.,  63  Fed. 
588,  11  C.  C.  A.  342;  Bortree  v.  Jackson,  43 
Fed.   136;   Gottfried  v.  Phillip  Best  Brewing 
Co.,   10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,633,  5  Ban.  &  A.  4, 
17   Off.   Gaz.  675;   Knight  v.  Gavit,   14  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,884. 

36.  Schaum  v.  Riehl,   124  Fed.   320;   Par- 
sons  v.    Seelye,    92    Fed.    1005;    Brill   v.    St. 
Louis  Car  Co.,  90  Fed.  666,  33  C.  C.  A.  213; 
Campbell  Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Duplex 
Printing-Press     Co.,     86     Fed.     315;     Adams 
Electric    R.    Co.   v.   Lindell    R.    Co.,    77    Fed. 
432,  23  C.  C.  A.  223;  Davis  v.  Parkman,  71 


Fed.  961,  18  C.  C.  A.  398;  Carter  Mach.  Co. 
v.  Hanes,  70  Fed.  859;  Boyden  Power-Brake 
Co.  v.  Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co.,  70  Fed. 
816,  17  C.  C.  A.  430  {reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  170  U.  S.  537,  18  S.  Ct.  707,  42 
L.  ed.  1136];  Lee  v.  Pillsbury,  49  Fed.  747; 
Rapid  Service  Store  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  43  Fed. 
249;  Bruce  v.  Marder,  10  Fed.  750,  20 
Blatchf.  355 ;  Vance  v.  Campbell,  28  Fed.  Caa. 
No.  16,837,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  483  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  1  Black  427,  17  L.  ed. 
168]. 

37.  National  Meter  Co.  v.  Neptune  Meter 
Co.,  122  Fed.  75   [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  127  Fed.  563,  62  C.  C.  A.  345]  ;  Beach  v. 
Hobbs,  82  Fed.  916;  Francis  v.  Mellor,  9  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,039,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   153,  1  Off. 
Gaz.   48,   8   Phila.    (Pa.)    157;    Metropolitan 
Wringing-Mach.   Co.  v.  Young,    17   Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,508,  2  Ban.  &  A.  460-,   14  Blatchf.  46; 
Westinghouse  v.  Gardner,  etc.,  Air-Brake  Co., 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,450,  2  Ban.  &  A.  55,  9 
Off.  Gaz.  538. 

38.  Brunswick-Balke-Collender    Co.    v.   Ro- 
satto,    159    Fed.    729;    Electric   Candy  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Morris,  156  Fed.  972;  Kelsey  Heating 
Co.  v.  James  Spear  Stove,  etc.,  Co.,  155  Fed. 
976;    National    Hollow    Brake-Beam    Co.    v. 
Interchangeable    Brake-Beam    Co.,    106    Fed. 
693,   45   C.   C.   A.   544;    Bonnette  Arc  Lawn 
Sprinkler    Co.    v.    Koehler,    82    Fed.    428,   27 
C.   C.  A.   200;    Muller  v.  Lodge,  etc.,  Mach. 
Tool    Co.,    77    Fed.    621,    23    C.    C.    A.    357; 
Schreiber,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Grimm,  72  Fed.  671,  19 
C.    C.   A.    67;    McCormick   Harvesting   Mach. 
Co.  v.  Aultman,  69  Fed.  371,  16  C.  C.  A.  259; 
Delemater  v.  Heath,  58  Fed.  414,  7  C.  C.  A. 
279;    Brown   v.    Stilwell,   etc.,    Mfg.    Co.,    57 
Fed.  731,  741,  6  C.  C.  A.  528. 

Improvements  of  narrow  character. —  The 
use  of  letters  in  a  claim  to  describe  a  pa- 
tented invention,  which  is  merely  an  improve- 
ment of  a  narrow  character,  will  limit  the 
inventor  to  the  elements  so  designated,  as 
shown  in  the  drawings  and  specifications  to 
which  the  letters  refer,  which  are  by  such 
reference,  in  effect,  incorporated  in  the  claim. 
Ross-Moyer  llfg.  Co.  v.  Randall,  104  Fed.  355, 
43  C.  C.  A.  578. 

39.  Dolbear  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  126 
U.  S.  1,  8  S.  Ct.  778,  31  L.  ed.  863;  Diamond 

[X,  B,  5] 


940     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


of  each  other  at  the  time  of  the  patent.40     What  is  regarded  as  an  equivalent 
depends  upon  the  circumstances  of  the  particular  case.41 

6.  PIONEER  INVENTIONS.42     Where  the  invention  is  broad  and  meritorious  and 
makes  a  radical  advance  in  the  art,  the  field  of  equivalents  is  equally  broad  and 
the  claim  will  receive  a  broad  and  liberal  interpretation.43     A  patent  original  in 
its  character  is  entitled  to  a  broader  construction  than  one  which  is  for  a  mere 
improvement.44 

7.  IMPROVEMENTS.     Where  the  invention  is  a  narrow  specific  improvement  upon 
prior  inventions,  the  field  of  equivalents  is  restricted  and  the  patent  must  be  nar- 
rowly construed.45     One  who  merely  makes  and  secures  a  patent  for  a  -slight 


Match  Co.  v.  Ruby  Match  Co.,  127  Fed.  341; 
Klauder-Weldon  Dyeing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Stead- 
well  Dyeing  Mach.  Co.,  122  Fed.  640  [affirmed 
in  128  Fed.  724,  63  C.  C.  A.  322];  Union 
Steam-Pump  Co.  v.  Battle  Creek  Steam-Pump 
Co.,  104  Fed.  337,  43  C.  C.  A.  560;  Bundy 
Mfg.  Co.  i\  Detroit  Time-Register  Co.,  94  Fed. 
524,  36  C.  C.  A.  375 ;  Thrall  v.  Poole,  89  Fed. 
718;  Delemater  v.  Heath,  58  Fed.  414,  7 
C.  C.  A.  279;  Rodebaugh  v.  Jackson,  37  Fed. 
882;  Burden  v.  Corning,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,143,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  477;  Corliss  t. 
Wheeler,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,233, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  199;  Hayden  v.  Suffolk 
Mfg.  Co..  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,261,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  86  [affirmed  in  3  Wall.  315,  18  L.  ed. 
76];  McComb  v.  Brodie,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,708,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  384,  1  Woods  153, 
2  Off.  Gaz.  117;  Murphy  v.  Eastham,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,949,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  306,  Holmes 
113,  2  Off.  Gaz.  61.  And  see  infra,  X,  B,  6. 

Equivalents  in  process  see  Schwarzwalder 
v.  New  York  Filter  Co.,  66  Fed.  152,  13 
C.  C.  A.  380;  Bridge  v.  Brown,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,857,  Holmes  53. 

Equivalent  ingredients  of  composition  see 
Blount  v.  Societe  Anonyme  du  Filtre  Cham- 
berland  Systeme  Pasteur,  53  Fed.  98,  3 
C.  C.  A.  455;  Francis  v.  Mellor,  9  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,039,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  153,  1  Off.  Gaz. 
48,  8  Phila.  (Pa.)  157;  Goodyear  v.  Berry, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,556,  2  Bond  189,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  439;  Matthews  v.  Skates,  16  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,291,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  602. 

40.  Folger   v.   Dow   Portable   Electric   Co., 
128   Fed.   45    [affirmed   in    133   Fed.   295,   68 
C.  C.  A.  551] ;  Severy  Process  Co.  v.  Harper, 
113   Fed.   581;   Magic  Light  Co.  v.  Economy 
Gas-Lamp  Co.,  97   Fed.  87,  38  C.  C.  A.  56; 
Kelly  17.  Springfield  R.  Co.,  92  Fed.  614,  34 
C.  C.  A.   570;    Gerard  v.  Diebold  Safe,  etc., 
Co.,   61    Fed.   209,   9   C.   C.   A.  451,   54   Fed. 
889,  4  C.  C.  A.  644;  Colgate  v.  Law  Tel.  Co., 
6   Fed.    Cas.  No.   2,993a,   5    Ban.   &  A.   437; 
McCormick  v.  Manny,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,724, 
6  McLean  539   [affirmed  in  20  How.  402,   15 
L.  ed.  930]. 

41.  Rich    v.    Baldwin,    133    Fed.    920,    66 
C.  C.  A.  464;  Dowagiac  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Brennan, 
118  Fed.   143    [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
127  Fed.   143,  62  C.  C.  A.  257];   Adams  Co. 
f?.    Schreiber,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.,    Ill    Fed.    182 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  117  Fed.  830, 
54  C.  C.  A.  128]  ;  Brammer  v.  Schroeder,  106 
Fed.   918,  46  C.   C.  A.  41;   National  Hollow 
Brake-Beam    Co.    v.    Interchangeable    Brake- 
Beam   Co.,    106   Fed.    693,  45  C.   C.   A.   544; 

[X,  B,  5] 


Carter  Mach.  Co.  v.  Hanes,  70  Fed.  859 ;  Erie 
Rubber  Co.  v.  American  Dunlop  Tire  Co.,  70 
Fed.  58,  16  C.  C.  A.  632;  Pittsburgh  Re- 
duction Co.  v.  Cowles  Electric  Smelting,  etc., 
Co.,  55  Fed.  301;  Norton  v.  Jensen,  49  Fed. 
859,  1  C.  C.  A.  452;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Cellonite  Mfg.  Co.,  42  Fed.  900;  Michaelis 
•i;.  Roessler,  34  Fed.  325;  Bridgeport  Wood 
Finishing  Co.  v.  Hooper,  5  Fed.  63,  18 
Blatchf.  459. 

42.  The  word  "  pioneer  "  is  commonly  un- 
derstood to  denote  a  patent  covering  a  func- 
tion never  before  performed,  a  wholly  novel 
device,  or  one  of  such  novelty  and  importance 
as  to  mark  a  distinct  step   in  the   progress 
of  the  art,  as  distinguished  from  a  mere  im- 
provement   or   perfection   of   what   has    gone 
before.       Westinghouse     v.     Boyden     Power- 
Brake  Co.,  170  U.  S.  537,  561,  18  S.  Ct.  707, 
42  L.  ed.  1136. 

43.  Tecktonius  v.  Scott,   110  Wis.  441,  86 
N.  W.  672;  Boyden  Power-Brake  Co.  v.  West- 
inghouse,   170   U.  S.   537,   18   S.   Ct.   707,  42 
L.  ed.  1136;  Sessions  v.  Romadka,  145  U.  S. 
29,  12  S.  Ct.  799,  36  L.  ed.  609;  Morley  Sew- 
ing Mach.  Co.  v.  Lancaster,  129  U.  S.  263,  9 
S.  Ct.  299,  32  L.  ed.  715;  Marconi  Wireless 
Tel.  Co.  v.  De  Forest  Wireless  Tel.  Co.,  138 
Fed.   657;    Dowagiac  Mfg.   Co.  t/.   Minnesota 
Moline  Plow  Co.,   118  Fed.   136,  55  C.  C.  A. 
86;    Metallic   Extraction   Co.   v.   Brown,    104 
Fed.  345,  43  C.  C.  A.  568 ;  Ford  v.  Bancroft, 
98  Fed.  309,  39  C.  C.  A.  91;  King  Ax  Co.  v. 
Hubbard,  97  Fed.  795,  38  C.  C.  A.  423;  Pen- 
field  v.  Chambers  Bros.  Co.,  92  Fed.  630,  34 
C.   C.   A.   579;   Muller  v.  Lodge,  etc.,  Mach. 
Tool  Co.,  77  Fed.  621,  23  C.  C.  A.  357;  Tuttle 
i;.    Claflin,    76   Fed.    227,   22    C.    C.    A.    138; 
Reminder   Lock   Co.   v.   Adler,    71    Fed.    183; 
Bowers  v.  Von  Schmidt,  63  Fed.  572;  Groth 
v.   International  Postal   Supply  Co.,  61   Fed. 
284,  9  C.  C.  A.  507 ;  Harmon  v.  Struthers,  57 
Fed.  637 ;  Troy  Laundry  Mach.  Co.  v.  Sharp, 
54  Fed.  712;  Dederick  17.  Seigmund,  51   Fed. 
233,  2  C.  C.  A.  169;  Norton  v.  Jensen,  49  Fed. 
859,  1  C.  C.  A.  452;  Torrant  17.  Duluth  Lum- 
ber Co.,  30  Fed.  830;  May  v.  Fond  du  Lac,  27 
Fed.  691 ;    Standard  Measuring  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Teague,     15     Fed.     390;     Hammerschlag     v. 
Scamoni,    7    Fed.   584;    Knapp  v.   Joubert,  7 
Fed.  219,  19  Blatchf.  148;  Cornell  v.  Downer, 
etc.,   Brewing   Co.,   6   Fed.   Cas.  No.  3,236,   2 
Ban.  &  A.  514,  7  Biss.  346,  11  Off.  Gaz.  331. 

44.  May  17.  Fond  du  Lac,  27  Fed.  691. 

45.  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cramer,   192  U.  S. 
265,  24  S.  Ct.  291,  48  L.  ed.  437;  Wright  v. 
Yuengling,  155  U.  S.  47,  15  S.  Ct.  1,  39  L.  ed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     941 


improvement  on  an  old  device  or  combination,  which  performed  the  same  functions 
before  as  after  the  improvement,  is  protected  against  those  only  who  use  the  very 
device  or  improvement  he  describes  or  claims,  or  mere  colorable  evasions  of  it.46 
The  term  "  mechanical  equivalent,"  when  applied  to  a  slight  and  almost  immaterial 
improvement  in  the  progress  of  an  art,  has  a  very  narrow  and  limited  meaning.47 

8.  COMBINATION.     Every   element  included  in  a  combination  claim  must  be 
regarded  as  material,  and  therefore  the  claim  covers  nothing  less  than  the  entire 
combination.48 

9.  AMENDMENT  IN  PATENT  OFFICE.     Limitations  placed  in  a  claim  by  amend- 
ment in  response  to  rejections  by  the  patent  office  must  be  regarded  as  material, 


64;  Knapp  v.  Morss,  150  U.  S.  221,  14  S.  Ct. 
81,  37  L.  ed.  1059;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Sayles,  97  U.  S.  554,  24  L.  ed.  1053;  Hardi- 
son  v.  Brinkman,  156  Fed.  962;  Kenney 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  J.  L.  Mott  Iron  Works,  137  Fed. 
431 ;  Rich  v.  Baldwin,  133  Fed.  920,  66  C.  C.  A. 
464;  Weisgerber  v.  Clowney,  131  Fed.  477; 
Folger  v.  Dow  Portable  Electric  Co.,  128  Fed. 
45  [affirmed  in  133  Fed.  295,  68  C.  C.  A. 
551]  ;  Sander  v.  Rose,  121  Fed.  835,  58 
C.  C.  A.  171;  General  Fire  Extinguisher  Co. 
v.  Mailers,  110  Fed.  528;  Goodyear  Shoe 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Spaulding,  110  Fed.  393,  49 
C.  C.  A.  88;  Thomas-Houston  Electric  Co.  V. 
Lorain  Steel  Co.,  107  Fed.  711,  46  C.  C.  A. 
593 ;  Davey  Pegging  Mach.  Co.  v.  Prouty,  107 
Fed.  505,  46  C.  C.  A.  439;  Brammer  v. 
Schroeder,  106  Fed.  918,  46  C.  C.  A.  41; 
National  Hollow  Brake-Beam  Co.  v.  Inter- 
changeable Brake-Beam  Co.,  106  Fed.  693,  45 
C.  C.  A.  544;  Winslow  v.  Bronson,  106  Fed. 
178;  Kursheedt  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Naday,  103  Fed. 
948;  Reineke  v.  Dixon- Woods  Co.,  102  Fed. 
349,  42  C.  C.  A.  388 ;  Noonan  v.  Chester  Park 
Athletic  Club  Co.,  99  Fed.  90,  39  C.  C.  A. 
426 ;  Nutter  v.  Brown,  98  Fed.  892,  39  C.  C.  A. 
332;  McBride  v.  Kingman,  97  Fed.  217,  38 
C.  C.  A.  123;  Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co.  v. 
New  York  Air-Brake  Co.,  96  Fed.  991,  37 
C.  C.  A.  649 ;  Union  Switch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Phila- 
delphia, etc.,  R.  Co.,  96  Fed.  761,  37  C.  C.  A. 
580;  Taber  Bas-Relief  Photograph  Co.  v. 
Marceau,  87  Fed.  871;  MacColl  v.  Crompton 
Loom  Works,  87  Fed.  731  [affirmed  in  95 
Fed.  987] ;  Hart,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Anchor 
Electric  Co.,  82  Fed.  911;  Norton  v.  Jensen, 
81  Fed.  494;  Adams  Electric  R.  Co.  v.  Lindell 
R.  Co.,  77  Fed.  432,  23  C.  C.  A.  223;  Murphy 
Mfg.  Co.  17.  Excelsior  Car-Roof  Co.,  76  Fed. 
965,  22  C.  C.  A.  658;  Edison  Electric  Light 
Co.  v.  Electrical  Engineering,  etc.,  Co.,  72 
Fed.  274 ;  Carter  Mach.  Co.  v.  Hanes,  70  Fed. 
859;  Wright,  etc.,  Wire-Cloth  Co.  v.  Clinton 
Wire-Cloth  Co.,  67  Fed.  790,  14  C.  C.  A.  646; 
Wells  17.  Curtis,  66  Fed.  318,  13  C.  C.  A.  494; 
Stirrat  v.  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.,  61  Fed.  980,  10 
C.  C.  A.  216;  Standard  Folding-Bed  Co.  v. 
Osgood,  51  Fed.  675  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  58  Fed.  583,  7  C.  C.  A.  382]; 
Jones  Co.  v.  Muneger  Improved  Cotton  Mach. 
Mfg.  Co.,  49  Fed.  61,  1  C.  C.  A.  158;  Wright 
v.  Postel,  44  Fed.  352 ;  Schmid  v.  Scovill  Mfg. 
Co.,  37  Fed.  345;  Hill  i:  Sawyer,  31  Fed.  282, 
24  Blatchf.  430;  Hoff  17.  Iron-Clad  Mfg.  Co., 
31  Fed.  45;  Johnston  Ruffler  Co.  v.  Avery 
Mach.  Co.,  28  Fed.  193;  Osceola  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Pie,  28  Fed.  83;  Tobey  Furniture  Co.  v. 


Colby,  26  Fed.  100;  Buzzell  v.  Andrews,  25 
Fed.  822;  Root  v.  Lamb,  7  Fed.  222;  Cromp- 
ton i?.  Belknap  Mills,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,406,  3- 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536 ;  Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  9  Fed, 
Cas.  No.  5,151,  1  Ban.  &  A.  520,  6  Biss.  203 
[affirmed  in  94  U.  S.  288,  24  L.  ed.  103]  j 
Rapp  v.  Bard,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,577,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  196;  Union  Sugar  Refinery  «. 
Matthiesson,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,399,  3  Cliff. 
639,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  600;  Yuengling  v. 
Johnson,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,195,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  99,  1  Hughes  607 ;  Crompton  v.  Belknap 
Mills,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,285,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
C«LS.  356. 

Patentee  entitled  to  reasonable  range  of 
equivalents  see  Levy  17.  Harris,  124  Fed.  69 
[affirmed  in  130  Fed.  711,  65  C.  C.  A.  113]  ; 
McSherry  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Dowagiac  Mfg.  Co.,  101 
Fed.  716,  41  C.  C.  A.  627;  Tatum  v.  Gregory, 
41  Fed.  142;  Wollensak  v.  Reiher,  28  Fed. 
424. 

46.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  17.  Sayles,  97  U.  S. 
554,  24  L.  ed.  1053 ;  McCormick  v.  Talcott,  20 
How.   (U.  S.)   402,  15  L.  ed.  930;  Brammer  17. 
Schroeder,    106    Fed.    918,    46    C.    C.    A.    41; 
Adams  Electric  R.  Co.  v.  Lindell  R.  Co.,  77 
Fed.  432,  23  C.  C.  A.  223 ;  Stirrat  v.  Excelsior 
Mfg.  Co.,  61  Fed.  980,  10  C.  C.  A.  216. 

47.  Brammer   v.  Schroeder,   106   Fed.   918, 
46  C.  C.  A.  41. 

48.  Wollensak  v.  Sargent,   151  U.   S.  221, 
14  S.  Ct.  291,  38  L.  ed.  137;. Snow  17.  Lake 
Snore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   121   U.  S.   617,   7  S.  Ct. 
1343,  30  L  ed.  1004;  Bragg  17.  Fitch,  121  U.  S. 
478,  7  S.  Ct.  978,  30  L.  ed.  1008;  Electric  R. 
Signal  Co.   v.  Hall  R.  Signal  Co.,  114  U.  S. 
87,   5   S.   Ct.    1069,   29   L.   ed.   96;    Rowell   v. 
Lindsay,  113  U.  S,  97,  5  S.  Ct.  507,  28  L.  ed. 
906;    Fay   17.    Cordesman,    109    U.   S.    408,   3 
S.  Ct.  236,  27  L.  ed.  979;  Case  17.  Brown,  2 
Wall.    (U.  S.)   320,  17  L.  ed.  817;  U.  S.  Peg 
Wood,  etc.,  Co.  v.  B.  F.  Sturtevant,  122  Fed. 
476    [affirmed  in   125   Fed.  382,   60   C.  C.  A. 
248] ;  Muller  v.  Lodge,  etc.,  Mach.  Tool  Co., 
77    Fed.    621,    23    C.    C.    A.    357;    Thomson- 
Houston   Electric    Co.    v.   Kelsey   Electric  R. 
Specialty  Co.,  75  Fed.   1005,  22  C.  C.  A.  1; 
Mott  Iron- Works  Co.  17.  Standard  Mfg.  Co.,  53 
Fed.  819,  4  C.  C.  A.  28;  Stewart  v.  Mahoney, 
5   Fed.   302;   Brooks  v.   Jenkins,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,953,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  41,  3  McLean  432; 
Parham  v.  American  Buttonhole,  etc.,  Co.,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,713,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  478; 
Prouty  v.  Draper,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,446,  2 
Rapp  Pat.  Cas.  75,  1  Story  568   [affirmed  in 
16  Pet.  336,  10  L.  ed.  985].     And  see  infra, 
XIII,  A,  5.     • 

[X.  B,  9] 


94:2     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


and  therefore  the  claim  cannot  be  given  the  mean  ng  wmch  it  woiua  have  had 
without  amendment.49  The  rule  applies  to  cases  in  which  the  original  claim  is 
narrower  than  the  patent  as  well  as  to  cases  in  which  it  is  broader.50  So  it 
applies,  although  the  objections  to  the  claim  were  unfounded  and  the  limitation 
unnecessary.51  Mere  formal  amendments,  however,  will  not  limit  the  patent;52 
and  in  any  event  the  patent  will  not  be  limited  by  the  amendment  beyond  what 
is  necessary,53  nor  construed  as  a  disclaimer  of  the  patentee's  actual  invention,  if 


49.  Hubbell  v.  U.  S.,  179  U.  S.  86,  21  S.  Ct. 
28,  45  L.  ed.  100;  McCarty  v.  Lehigh  Valley 
R.  Co.,  160  U.  S.  110,  16  S.  Ct.  240,  40  L.  ed. 
358;  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.  v.  Kearney,  158 
U.  S.  461,  15  S.  Ct.  871,  39  L.  ed.  1055;  Mor- 
gan Envelope  Co.  v.  Albany  Perforated  Wrap- 
ping Paper  Co.,  152  U.  S.  425,  14  S.  Ct.  627, 
38  L.  ed.  500;  Knapp  v.  Morss,  150  U.  S.  221, 
14  S.  Ct.  81,  37  L.  ed.  1059;  Royer  v.  Coupe, 
146  U.  S.  524,  13  S.  Ct.  166,  36  L.  ed.  1073; 
Phoenix  Caster  Co.  v.  Spiegel,  133  U.  S.  360, 
10  S.  Ct.  409,  33  L.  ed.  663;  McCormick  v. 
Whitmer,  129  U.  S.  1,  9  S.  Ct.  213,  32  L.  ed. 
593;  Crawford  v.  Heysinger,  128  U.  S.  589,  8 
S.  Ct.  399,  31  L.  ed.  269 ;  Sutler  v.  Robinson, 
119  U.  S.  530,  7  S.  Ct.  376,  30  L.  ed.  492; 
Shepard  v.  Carrigan,  116  U.  S.  593,  6  S.  Ct. 
493,  29  L.  ed.  723;  Sargent  v.  Hall  Safe,  etc., 
Co.,  114  U.  S.  63,  5  S.  Ct.  1021,  29  L.  ed.  67; 
American  Stove  Co.  v.  Cleveland  Foundry 
Co.,  158  Fed.  978;  St.  Louis  St.  Flushing 
Mach.  Co.  v.  American  St.  Flushing  Mach. 
Co.,  156  Fed.  574,  84  C.  C.  A.  340; 
Good  Form  Mfg.  Co.  v.  White,  153  Fed.  759; 
Greens  v.  Buckley,  135  Fed.  520,  68  C.  C.  A. 
70;  Hale  v.  World  Mfg.  Co.,  127  Fed.  964,  62 
C.  C.  A.  596;  Ludington  Novelty  Co.  v.  Leon- 
ard, 119  Fed.  937  [affirmed  in  127  Fed.  155, 
62  C.  C.  A.  269] ;  General  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  v.  Mailers,  110  Fed.  528;  Millard  v.  Chase, 
108  Fed.  399,  47  C.  C.  A.  429;  Reineke  v. 
Dixon-Woods  Co.,  102  Fed.  349,  42  C.  C.  A. 
388;  Campbell  Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Duplex  Printing-Press  Co.,  101  Fed.  282,  41 
C.  C.  A.  351;  National  Hollow  Brake  Beam 
Co.  v.  Interchangeable  Brake  Beam  Co.,  99 
Fed.  758;  Anthony  v.  Gennert,  99  Fed.  95; 
Irwin  v.  Hasselman,  97  Fed.  964,  38  C.  C.  A. 
587 ;  Coburn  Trolley-Track  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chand- 
ler, 97  Fed.  333,  38  C.  C.  A.  201 ;  Magic  Light 
Co.  v.  Economy  Gas-Lamp  Co.,  97  Fed.  87, 
38  C.  C.  A.  56;  Norton  v.  Jensen,  90  Fed.  415, 
33  C.  C.  A.  141;  Carnegie  Steel  Co.  v.  Cam- 
bria Iron  Co.,  89  Fed.  721  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  96  Fed.  850,  37  C.  C.  A.  593]; 
Griffith  v.  Shaw,  89  Fed.  313;  Kelly  v.  Clow, 
89  Fed.  297,  32  C.  C.  A.  205;  Perkins  Elec- 
tric Switch  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gibbs  Electric  Mfg. 
Co.,  87  Fed.  922;  Stearns  v.  Russell,  85  Fed. 
218,  29  C.  C.  A.  121 ;  Olmsted  v.  Andrews,  77 
Fed.  835,  23  C.  C.  A.  488;  Wheaton  v.  Nor- 
ton, 70  Fed.  833,  17  C.  C.  A.  447;  Kennedy  v. 
Solar  Refining  Co.,  69  Fed.  715;  Reece  But- 
ton-Hole Mach.  Co.  v.  Globe  Button-Hole 
Mach.  Co.,  61  Fed.  958,  10  C.  C.  A.  194; 
McCormack  Harvesting  Mach.  Co.  v.  Ault- 
man,  58  Fed.  773;  Temple  Pump  Co.  v.  Goss 
Pump,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  58  Fed.  196,  7  C.  C.  A. 
174;  Merritt  v.  Middleton,  55  Fed.  976  [af- 
firmed in  61  Fed.  680,  10  C.  C.  A.  10]  ;  Mott 
Iron- Works  Co.  v.  Standard  Mfg.  Co.,  53  Fed. 

[X,  B,  9] 


819,  4  C.  C.  A.  28;  Gamewell  Fire- Alarm  Tel. 
Co.  v.  Municipal  Signal  Co.,  52  Fed.  471; 
Douglas  v.  Abraham,  50  Fed.  420;  Shaw 
Stocking  Co.  v.  Pearson,  48  Fed.  234;  Falls 
Rivet  Co.  v.  Wolfe,  40  Fed.  465;  Bralm  v. 
Ramapo  Iron- Works,  35  Fed.  63;  Romer  v. 
Peddie,  27  Fed.  702;  New  York  Belting,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Sibley,  15  Fed.  386.  And  see  supra, 
X,  A,  5. 

Qualification  of  acquiescence. —  The  appli- 
cant cannot  qualify  the  effect  of  acquiescence 
by  statements.  Norton  v.  Jensen,  81  Fed. 
494;  Thomas  v.  Rocker  Spring  Co.,  77  Fed. 
420,  23  C.  C.  A.  211. 

Liberal  construction  of  claim  as  granted. — 
While  it  is  settled  law  that  a  patentee  who 
has  acquiesced  in  the  rejection  of  a  broad 
claim  by  substituting  a  narrower  one  cannot 
insist  upon  a  construction  of  the  latter  to 
cover  that  which  was  rejected,  yet  such  rule 
does  not  debar  him  from  a  liberal  construc- 
tion of  the  claim  as  granted,  nor  from  the 
benefit  of  the  doctrine  of  equivalents.  Hey- 
wood  Bros.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Syracuse  Rapid  Tran- 
sit R.  Co.,  152  Fed.  453. 

Amendments  as  to  incidental  matters. — 
If  there  was  no  amendment  narrowing  a 
claim  of  a  patent  in  respect  to  the  essential 
feature  of  the  invention  disclosed  therein, 
amendments  made  in  reference  to  an  inci- 
dental matter  intended  to  perfect  the  claim 
or  device  impose  no  restriction  on  the  rights 
of  the  patentee  in  respect  to  equivalents. 
Heywood  Bros.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Syracuse  Rapid 
Transit  R.  Co.,  152  Fed.  453. 

50.  Morgan   Envelope   Co.   v.   Albany   Per- 
forated Wrapping  Paper  Co.,  152  U.  S.  425, 
14  S.  Ct.  627,  38  L.  ed.  500. 

51.  Safety   Oiler   Co.   v.   Scovill   Mfg.   Co., 
110  Fed.  203;  Brill  v.  St.  Louis  Car  Co.,  90 
Fed.  666,  33  C.  C.  A.  213;  Truman  v.  Deere 
Implement  Co.,  80  Fed.  109;   Smith  v.  Mac- 
beth, 67  Fed.  137,  14  C.  C.  A.  241 ;  Ball,  etc., 
Fastener  Co.  v.  Ball  Glove  Fastening  Co.,  58 
Fed.  818,  7  C.  C.  A.  498;  Reece  Buttonhole 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Globe  Buttonhole  Mach.  Co.,  54 
Fed.   884    [reversed  on  other  grounds   in   61 
Fed.  958,  10  C.  C.  A.  194] ;  Blades  v.  Rand, 
27   Fed.   93    [affirmed  in   136  U.   S.   631,    10 
S.  Ct.  1065,  34  L.  ed.  553]. 

52.  Welsbach   Light   Co.   v.    Cremo   Incan- 
descent Light  Co.,  145  Fed.  521   [affirmed  in 
151   Fed.   1023,  81   C.  C.  A.  683];   Diamond 
Drill,   etc.,   Co.   v.  Kelly,    120   Fed.   282    [re- 
versed  on    other   grounds    in    123    Fed.    882, 
59   C.   C.  A.  370]  ;    Babcock  v.  Clarkson,   58 
Fed.   581;    Bunt  Bros.    Fruit-Packing  Co.   v. 
Cassidy,  53  Fed.  257,  3  C.  C.  A.  525;  Brush 
Electric  Co.  v.  Electric  Imp.  Co.,  52  Fed.  965. 

53.  Eck  v.  Kutz,   132  Fed.   758;   National 
Hollow    Brake-Beam    Co.    v.    Interchangeable 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     943 


such  construction  can  be  avoided  without  doing  violence  to  the  obvious  meaning 
of  the  language  used.54 

10.  SEPARATE  CLAIMS  DISTINGUISHED.     The  several  claims  of  a  patent  must  be  so 
construed  where  possible  as  to  give  them  different  meanings.55 

11.  DESIGNS.     Design  patents  govern  not  merely  the  identical  design  disclosed, 
but  such  as  so  nearly  resemble  it  in  appearance  as  to  deceive  ordinary  observers.56 
The  ordinary  principles  of  construction  apply.57 

XL  TITLE,  CONVEYANCES,  AND  CONTRACTS.58 
A.  Assignments  and  Other  Transfers 59 —  1.  IN  GENERAL  —  a.  Assignability. 

Under  express  statutory  provisions  patents  and  interests  therein  are  assignable.60 
b.  Who  May  Assign 61  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.     The  patentee,  his  assigns  or  legal 

representatives,  may  transfer  interests  in  or  rights  under  the  patent.6^ 

(n)  JOINT  OWNERS.*®    Where  two  or  more  parties  own  a  patent  jointly,  either 

may  make,  use,  and  sell  the  invention,  or  grant  to  others  the  right  to  do  so,  and 

this  is  true  without  regard  to  the  proportionate  interest  which  the  parties  own.64 


Brake-Beam  Co.,  106  Fed.  693,  45  C.  C.  A. 
544 ;  Bundy  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Detroit  Time-Register 
Co.,  94  Fed.  524,  36  C.  C.  A.  375;  Heap  v. 
Greene,  91  Fed.  792,  34  C.  C.  A.  86;  Westing- 
house  v.  Boyden  Power-Brake  Co.,  66  Fed. 
997;  Consolidated  Roller-Mill  Co.  v.  Coombs, 
39  Fed.  25. 

54.  Lake    Shore,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v.   National 
Car-Brake  Shoe  Co.,  110  U.  S.  229,  4  S.  Ct. 
33,  28  L.  ed.   129;   Westinghouse  v.  Boyden 
Power-Brake  Co.,  66  Fed.  997;  Reece  Button- 
Hole  Mach.  Co.  v.  Globe  Button-Hole  Mach. 
Co.,  61  Fed.  958,  10  C.  C.  A.  194. 

55.  Ruete  v.  Elwell,  15  App.  Gas.    (D.  C.) 
21 ;  Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Rubv  Match  Co., 
127  Fed.  341;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v. 
Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  110  Fed.  647;  Ander- 
son Foundry,  etc.,  Works  v.  Potts,  108  Fed. 
379,   47   C.  *C.   A.   409 ;    Bresnahan  v.   Tripp 
Giant  Leveller  Co.,  102  Fed.  899,  43  C.  C.  A. 
48;  Page  Woven  Wire  Fence  Co.  v.  Land,  49 
Fed.  936;   Tondeur  v.  Stewart,  28  Fed.  561; 
Cohansey  Glass  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wharton,  28  Fed. 
189;    Burden   v.    Corning,    4    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
2,143,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  477. 

Co-pending  applications  covering  other  de- 
velopments will  not  limit  claims.  Manhat- 
tan Gen.  Constr.  Co.  v.  Helios-Upton  Co.,  135 
Fed.  785. 

Later  patent  for  one  form  may  indicate  in- 
tended scope  of  claims  in  first.  McCormick 
Harvesting  Mach.  Co.  I/.  Aultman,  58  Fed. 
773. 

56.  Smith    v.    Whitman    Saddle    Co.,    148 
U.  S.  674,  13  S.  Ct.  768,  37  L.  ed.  606;  Brad- 
dock  Glass  Co.  17.  Macbeth,  64  Fed.   118,   12 
C.  C.  A.  70. 

Mechanical  constructions  are  not  covered 
by  design  patents.  Royal  Metal  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Art  Metal  Works,  121  Fed.  128  [affirmed  in 
130  Fed.  778,  66  C.  C.  A.  88]. 

Limited  to  particular  design  shown. —  De- 
sign patents  cannot  be  enlarged  by  the  speci- 
fication but  are  limited  to  the  particular  de- 
sign shown  in  the  drawings  filed.  Frank  v. 
Hess,  84  Fed.  170. 

Changes  of  color  are  immaterial.  Whit- 
tall  v.  Lowell  Mfg.  Co.,  79  Fed.  787. 

57.  U.  S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4933   [U.  S. 


Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3399];  Northrup  v. 
Adams,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,328,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
567,  12  Off.  Gaz.  430;  In  re  Mygatt,  12  Off. 
Gaz.  51. 

58.  See  supra,  I,  A,  5. 

Regulation  of  dealings  in  patent  rights  and 
patented  articles  see  infra,  XII. 

Subject  to:  Creditors'  suits  see  CRED- 
ITORS'  SUITS,  12  Cyc.  31.  Execution  see  EXE- 
CUTIONS, 17  Cyc.  943. 

59.  Insolvency    see    INSOLVENCY,    22    Cyc. 
1281. 

60.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4898;  Campbell 
v.  James,  2  Fed.  338,  18  Blatchf.  92,  holding 
that  all  interests  in  patents  are  assignable  in 
writing. 

Sale  of  patent  right  and  of  article  made 
under  patent  are  distinguished  in  Burns  v. 
Sparks,  82  S.  W.  425,  26  Ky.  L.  Rep.  688. 

61.  Agent's  power  to  assign  see  PRINCIPAL 
AND  AGENT. 

62.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4898. 

An  administrator  or  executor  may  assign. 
Donoughe  v.  Hubbard,  27  Fed.  742;  Elwood 
v.  Christy,  17  C.  B.  N.  S.  754,  10  Jur.  N.  S. 
1079,  34  L.  J.  C.  P.  130,  11  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
342,  13  Wkly.  Rep.  54,  112  E.  C.  L.  754. 

One  of  two  administrators  may  assign. 
Wintermute  v.  Redington,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  239. 

Assignment  by  person  of  unsound  mind  is 
void.  Colburn  v.  Van  Velzer,  11  Fed.  795,  3 
McCrary  650.  See,  generally,  INSANE  PER- 
SONS, 22  Cyc.  1194. 

Husband"  and  wife  may  make  transfers  as 
if  strangers.  Armitage  v.  Mace,  96  N.  Y. 
538;  Adams  v.  Adams,  91  N.  Y.  381,  43  Am. 
Rep.  675;  Waterman  v.  Mackenzie,  138  U.  S. 
252,  11  S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923. 

The  ability  of  a  married  woman  to  make 
the  instrument  of  assignment  must  be  found 
in  state  laws.  Fetter  v.  Newhall,  17  Fed. 
841,  21  Blatchf.  445.  See,  generally,  HUS- 
BAND AND  WIFE,  21  Cyc.  1310  et  seq. 

63.  Who   entitled   to   royalties   see   infra, 
XI,  B,  3,  a,  (m). 

64.  Gates  v.   Fraser,  9   111.  App.   624   [«/- 
firmed  in  118  111.  99,  1  N.  E.  817];  Lalance, 
etc.,   Mfg.    Co.   v.   National   Enameling,   etc., 

[XI,  A,  1,  b,  (II)] 


944     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


But  a  part  owner  of  a  patent  has  no  right  to  use  an  infringing  device.  If  he 
does  he  is  liable  to  his  eoowner  for  the  wrong  done.65  A  coowner  cannot  main- 
tain a  suit  for  infringement  against  the  grantee.66  Nor  can  one  joint  owner 
be  held  accountable  to  his  coowners  for  any  part  of  the  profits  he  may  make  from 
the  manufacture  and  sale  or  use  of  the  patented  article.67  The  rights  of  the 
coowners  may,  however,  be  limited  by  an  express  contract.68 

2.  AGREEMENTS  TO  ASSIGN  69  —  a.  In  General.  An  agreement  to  assign  a  patent 
is  an  executory  contract  which  may  be  enforced  in  a  court  of  equity.70  The 
agreement  to  assign  may  be  oral,  such  an  agreement  not  being  within  the  statute 
of  frauds,  nor  within  section  4898  of  the  Revised  Statutes  requiring  assignments 
of  patents  to  be  in  writing.71  Specific  performance  of  snch  an  agreement  will, 
however,  be  refused  where  the  patent  is  void.72 

b.  Future  Patents.  An  agreement  to  assign  patents  not  yet  secured  may  be 
enforced  if  it  is  sufficiently  definite  as  to  the  subject-matter.  If  the  parties 
intend  to  contract  for  future  inventions,  language  plainly  expressing  such  a  pur- 
pose must  be  used.73  An  assignment  of  a  patent  with  future  improvements 


Co.,  108  Fed.  77 ;  Levy  v.  Dattlebaum,  63  Fed. 
992 ;  Aspinwall  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gill,  32  Fed.  697 ; 
Chun  v.  Brewer,  5  Fed.  Gas.  No.  2,900,  2 
Curt.  506;  Dunham  v.  Indianapolis,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  8  Fed.  Gas.  No.  4,151,  2  Ban.  &  A.  327, 
7  Biss.  223;  May  v.  Chaffee,  16  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
9,332,  2  Dill.  385,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  160. 
See  also  Paulus  v.  M.  M.  Buck  Mfg.  Co.,  129 
Fed.  594,  64  C.  C.  A.  162.  Contra,  Pitts  v. 
Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,193,  3  Blatchf.  201. 
One  of  two  complainants  cannot  pending  suit 
make  an  assignment  to  or  license  defendant 
and  thus  defeat  suit.  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Haberman  Mfg.  Co.,  93  Fed.  197,  107  Fed. 
487. 

English  practice. —  Either  joint  owner  may 
use  and  must  account  only  for  royalties  re- 
ceived. Stears  v.  Rogers,  [1892]  2  Ch.  13, 
61  L.  J.  Ch.  676,  66  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  502  [af- 
firmed in  [1893]  A.  C.  232,  62  L.  J.  Ch.  671, 
68  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  726,  1  Reports  173]; 
Mathers  v.  Green,  L.  R.  1  Ch.  29,  11  Jur. 
N.  S.  845,  35  L.  J.  Ch.  1,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
420,  5  New  Rep.  358,  14  Wkly.  Rep.  17; 
Hancock  v.  Bewley,  Johns.  601,  70  Eng.  Re- 
print 559;  Lovell  v.  Hicks,  6  L.  J.  Exch.  85. 

2  Y.  &  C.  Exch.  481;  Heyl-Dia  v.  Edmunds, 
81  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  579,  48  Wkly.  Rep.  167. 
Joint  owners  are  partners.     Lovell  v.  Hicks, 
6  L.  J.  Exch.  85,  2  Y.  &  C.  Exch.  481.     See 
Lovell  v.  Hicks,  5  L.  J.  Exch.  101,  2  Y.  &  C. 
Exch.  46. 

65.  Herring   v.   Gas   Consumers'   Assoc.,   9 
Fed.  556,  3  McCrary  206. 

66.  Lalance,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.    t\    National 
Enameling,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Fed.  77;  Pusey,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Miller,  61  Fed.  401. 

67.  Vose  v.  Singer,  4  Allen    (Mass.)    226, 
81  Am.  Dec.  696;  De  Witt  v.  Elmira  Nobles 
Mfg.   Co.,   5  Hun    (N.  Y.)    301    [affirmed  in 
66  N.  Y.  459,  23  Am.  Rep.  73] ;  Blackledge  v. 
Weir,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  108  Fed.  71,  47  C.  C.  A. 
212.     But  see  Pusey,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Miller,  61 
Fed.  401;   Curran  v.  Burdsall,  20  Fed.  835; 
Herring  v.  Gas  Consumers'  Assoc.,  9  Fed.  556, 

3  McCrary  206. 

68.  Lalance,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.    v.    National 
Enameling,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Fed.  77. 

69.  Assignment   of  invention   or   right  to 
patent  see  infra,  XI,  A,  2,  b. 

[XI,  A,  1,  b,  (II)] 


70.  Birkery  Mfg.    Co.    v.   Jones,    71    Conn. 
113,  40  Atl.  917;   Bates  Mach.  Co.  v.  Bates, 
192  111.  138,  61  N.  E.  518;  Wheeler  v.  Fishell, 
32  111.  App.  343;  Macon  Knitting  Co.  v.  Lei- 
cester Mills   Co.,   65  N.  J.  Eq.    138,   55  Atl. 
401;   Thourot  v.  Holub,  81  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
634,  80  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1083;  Kennedy  v.  Hazel- 
ton,   128  U.  S.  667,  9  S.  Ct.  202,  32  L.  ed. 
576;  Ball,  etc.,  Fastener  Co.  v.  Patent  Button 
Co.,  136  Fed.  272 ;  Day  v.  Candee,  7  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,676,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  9;  Pitts  v.  Hall, 
19    Fed.    Cas.    No.    11,193,    3    Blatchf.    201; 
Hill  i?.  Mount,   18  C.  B.  72,  25  L.  J.  C.  P. 
190,  4  Wkly.  Rep.  563,  86  E.  C.  L.  72;  Na- 
tional Soc./etc.  v.  Gibbs,   [1900]   2  Ch.  280, 
69  L.  J.  Ch.  457,  82  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  443,  48 
Wkly.  Rep.  499. 

An  agreement  by  an  employee  to  assign 
improvements  to  his  employer  is  binding. 
Hulse  v.  Bonsack  Mach.  Co.,  65  Fed.  864,  13 
C.  C.  A.  180. 

71.  Whitney  v.  Burr,  115  111.  289,  3  N.  E. 
434;   Searle  IT-.  Hill,  73  Iowa  367,  35  N.  W. 
490,  5  Am.   St.  Rep.  688;    Spears  v.  Willis, 
151  N.  Y.  443,  43  N.  E.  849;  Jones  v.  Rey- 
nolds, 120  N.  Y.  213,  24  N.  E.  279;  Blakeney 
v.  Goode,  30  Ohio  St.  350;  Dalzell  v.  Dueber 
Watch-Case  Mfg.  Co.,  149  U.  S.  315,  13  S.  Ct. 
886,  37  L.  ed.  749;  Pressed  Steel  Car  Co.  r. 
Hansen,   128  Fed.  444   [affirmed  in  137   Fed. 
403,  71  C.  C.  A.  207,  2  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  1172]  ; 
Cook  v.  Sterling  Electric  Co.,   118  Fed.  45; 
Dalgleish  v.  Conboy,  26  U.  C.  C.  P.  254. 

72.  Wheeler  v.  Fishell,  32   111.  App.   343; 
Watson  v.  Deeds,  3  Ind.  App.  75,  29  N.  E. 
151;  Kennedy  v.  Hazelton,  128  U.  S.  667,  9 
S.  Ct.  202,  32  L.  ed.  576 ;  Hammond  v.  Mason, 
etc.,  Organ  Co.,  92  U.  S.  724,  23  L.  ed.  767; 
Cowles  Electric  Smelting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lowrey, 
79  Fed.  331,  24  C.  C.  A.  616;  Brush  Electric 
Co.  v.  California  Electric  Light  Co.,  52  Fed. 
945,  3  C.  C.  A.  368;  Kelly  v.  Porter,  17  Fed. 
519,   8   Sawy.   482;    Clum  v.  Brewer,   5   Fed. 
Cas.    No.    2,909,    2    Curt.    509;    Herbert    V. 
Adams,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,394,  4  Mason  15, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  505. 

73.  Burton  v.   Burton   Stock-Car   Co.,    171 
Mass.  437,  50  N.  E.  1029;  Jones  v.  Reynolds, 
120  N.  Y.  213,  24  N.  E.  279;  Tabor  v.  Hoff- 
man, 118  N.  Y.  30,  23  N.  E.  12,  16  Am.  St. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.j     945 


passes  only  improvements  on  the  particular  machine  secured  by  the  patent  and 
not  unrelated  inventions.74  An  agreement  to  assign  all  future  inventions  cannot 
be  enforced.75  An  instrument  of  transfer  identifying  the  invention  and  request- 
ing the  commissioner  of  patents  to  issue  the  patent  to  the  assignee  therein  oper- 
ates as  an  absolute  assignment.76  If  the  assignment  contains  no  request  that  the 
patent  issue  in  the  name  of  the  assignee,  his  title  is  equitable  merely.77 

e.  Recording.  The  law  does  not  require  that  agreements  to  assign  patents  be 
recorded,  and  therefore  their  record  is  not  constructive  notice.78 

d.  Actions.  An  agreement  to  assign  may  be  enforced  by  suit  in  equity  to 
compel  specific  performance,79  and  if  the  patentee  has  parted  with  title  and  is 
unable  to  carry  out  his  contract  damages  may  be  recovered.80 


Rep.  740;  Palmer  v.  De  Witt,  47  N.  Y.  532,  7 
Am.  Rep.  480 ;  Nilsson  v.  De  Haven,  47  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  537,  62  N.  Y.  Suppl.  506;  Maurice 
v.  Devol,  23  W.  Va.  247;  Gill  i?.  U.  S.,  160 
U.  S.  426,  16  S.  Ct.  322,  40  L.  ed.  480;  Dal- 
zell  v.  Dueber  Watch-Case  Mfg.  Co.,  149  U.  S. 
315,  13  S.  Ct.  886,  37  L.  ed.  749;  De  la 
Vergne  Refrigerating  Macli.  Co.  v.  Feather- 
ston,  147  U.  S.  219,  13  S.  Ct.  283,  37  L.  ed. 
138;  Solomons  v.  U.  S.,  137  U.  S.  342,  11 
S.  Ct.  88,  34  L.  ed.  667 ;  Ambler  v.  Whipple, 
20  Wall.  (U.  S.)  546,  22  L.  ed.  403;  Phila- 
delphia, etc.,  R.  Co.  i/.  Trimble,  10  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  367,  19  L.  ed.  948;  Gayler  v.  Wilder, 
10  How.  (U.  S.)  477,  13  L.  ed.  504;  Mc- 
Clurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  How.  (U.  S.)  202,  11 
L.  ed.  102;  Wheaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet.  (U.  S.) 
591,  8  L.  ed.  1055;  Shaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet. 
(U.  S.)  292,  8  L.  ed.  689;  Reece  Folding 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Fejiwick,  140  Fed.  287,  72 
C.  C.  A.  39,  2  L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  1094;  Regan 
Vapor-Engine  Co.  v.  Pacific  Gas-Engine  Co., 
49  Fed.  68,  1  C.  C.  A.  169;  Emmons  v.  Slad- 
din,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,470,  2  Ban.  &  A.  199, 
9  Off.  Gaz.  352;  Maxim  Nordenfelt  Guns, 
etc.,  Co.  17.  Nordenfelt,  [1893]  1  Ch.  630,  62 
L.  J.  Ch.  273,  68  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  833,  41 
Wkly.  Rep.  604;  Bewley  v.  Hancock,  6  De  G. 
M.  &  G.  391,  2  Jur.  N.  S.  289,  4  Wkly.  Rep. 
334,  55  Eng.  Ch.  305,  43  Eng.  Reprint  1285; 
Knowles  v.  Bovill,  22  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  70; 
Watson  v.  Harris,  31  Ont.  134.  See  Davis, 
etc.,  Temperature  Controlling  Co.  v.  Taglia- 
buc,  159  Fed.  712. 

It  is  an  executory  contract  and  not  an 
actual  transfer.  Regan  Vapor-Engine  Co.  v. 
Pacific  Gas-Engine  Co.,  49  Fed.  68,  1  C.  C.  A. 
169. 

Agreement  not  contrary  to  public  policy 
see  Printing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sampson,  L.  R.  19 
Eq.  462,  32  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  354,  23  Wkly. 
Rep.  463,  44  L.  J.  Ch.  705. 

Refusal  of  one  party  to  carry  out  the  agree- 
ment releases  the  other  from  all  liability 
thereunder.  Buck  v.  Timony,  79  Fed.  487 
[affirmed  in  84  Fed.  887,  28  C.  C.  A.  561]. 

A  contract  for  the  sale  of  improvements 
includes  only  those  already  made  unless  the 
contrary  is  expressed.  Adams  v.  Turner,  73 
Conn.  38,  46  Atl.  247;  Lamson  v.  Martin, 
159  Mass.  557,  35  N.  E.  78. 

74.  Bates  Mach.  Co.  v.  Bates,  192  111.  138 
61  N.  E.  518;  McFarland  v.  Stanton  Mfg.  Co., 
53  N.  J.  Eq.  649.  33  Atl.  962,  51  Am.  St.  Rep. 
647  [affirming  (Ch.  1895)  30  Atl.  1058]; 
Allison  v.  Allison,  144  N.  Y.  21,  38  N.  E. 
[60] 


956;  May  v.  Page,  60  N.  Y.  628;  Bessemer 
Steel  Co.  v.  Reese,  122  Pa.  St.  392,  15  Atl. 
807;  Frick  Co.  v.  Geiser  Mfg.  Co.,  100  Fed. 
94,  40  C.  C.  A.  291 ;  Independent  Electric  Co. 
v.  Jeffrey,  76  Fed.  981;  Regan  Vapor-Engine 
Co.  v.  Pacific  Gas-Engine  Co.,  49  Fed.  68,  1 
C.  C.  A.  169;  Aspinwall  v.  Gill,  32  Fed.  697 
[affirmed  in  140  U.  S.  669,  US.  Ct.  1015,  35 
L.  ed.  597];  Bunker  v.  Stevens,  26  Fed.  245; 
Nesmith  v.  Calvert,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,123, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  311,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  34; 
Watson  v.  Harris,  31  Ont.  134. 

The  contract  will  not  be  enforced  where  the 
invention  as  patented  is  different. —  Bingham 
v.  McMurray,  30  Can.  Sup.  Ct.'  159. 

75.  Bates  Mach.  Co.  v.  Bates,  87  111.  App. 
225    [affirmed    in    192    111.    138,    61    N.    E. 
518]. 

76.  Harrison   u.   Morton,    83   Md.    456,    35 
Atl.    99;    Johnson    v.    Wilcox,    etc.,    Sewing 
Mach.    Co.,    27    Fed.    689,    23    Blatchf.    531; 
Wright   1?.   Randel,    8    Fed.    591,    19   Blatchf. 
495;  Gay  17.  Cornell,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,280. 

I  Blatchf.   506,   Fish.   Pat.  Rep.   312;   Rath- 
bone  17.  Orr,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,585,  Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  355,  5  McLean  131. 

Assignment  of  provisional  protection  gives 
an  equitable  title  only.  E.  M.  Powden's  Pat- 
ents Syndicate  17.  Smith,  [1904]  2  Ch.  86,  73 
L.  J.  Ch.  522,  52  Wkly.  Rep.  630. 

77.  Harrison   17.   Morton,    83   Md.   456,    35 
Atl.   99;    Wright  v.  Randel,  8   Fed.   591,   19 
Blatchf.  495. 

Title  vests  in  the  assignee,  although  patent 
issues  in  the  name  of  assignor. —  Consolidated 
Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Edison  Electric  Light 
Co.,  25  Fed.  719,  23  Blatchf.  412;  U.  S. 
Stamping  Co.  17.  Jewett,  7  Fed.  869,  18 
Blatchf.  469. 

78.  English     practice. —  Equitable     assign- 
ment may  be  recorded  but  statute  refers  only 
to  legal  transfers.    In  re  Casey,  [1892]  1  Ch, 
104,  61  L.  J.  Ch.  61,  66  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  93, 
40  Wkly.  Rep.  180   [affirming  65  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  40]. 

79.  See  supra,  XI,  A,  2,  a.    See  also  Macon 
Knitting  Co.  v.  Leicester  Mills  Co.,  65  N.  J. 
Eq.   138,  55  Atl.  401;   Thourot  17.  Holub,  80 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  1083 ;  Cogent  17.  Gibson,  33  Beav. 
557,   55   Eng.   Reprint  485;    Powell  17.   Peck, 

II  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  494   [affirming  8  Ont.  App. 
498,  and  reversing  26  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  322] ; 
Dalgleish     17.     Conboy,     26     U.     C.     C.     P. 
254. 

80.  See  infra,  XI,  B,  5,  d,   (n),   (B).     See 
also  Barret  17.  Verdery,  93  Ga.  526,  21  S.  E. 

[XI.  A,  2,  d] 


946     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


3.  REQUISITES  AND  VALIDITY  —  a.  In  General.  The  monopoly  granted  by  the 
patent  laws  is  one  entire  thing,  and  cannot  be  divided  into  parts  except  as  author- 
ized by  law.81  A  patentee  or  his  assigns  may  by  instrument  in  writing  assign, 
grant,  and  convey,  either :  (1)  The  whole  patent,  comprising  the  exclusive  right  to 
make,  use,  and  vend  the  invention  throughout  the  United  States;  or  (2)  an  undi- 
vided part  or  share  of  that  exclusive  right ;  or  (3)  the  exclusive  right  under  the 
patent  within  and  throughout  a  specified  part  of  the  United  States.82  A  transfer 
of  either  of  these  three  kinds  of  interests  is  an  assignment,  properly  speaking,  and 
vests  in  the  assignee  a  title  in  so  much  of  the  patent  itself.83  Any  assignment  or 
transfer  short  of  one  of  these  is  a  mere  license  giving  the  licensee  no  title  in  the 
patent.84  Whether  a  transfer  of  a  particular  right  or  interest  under  a  patent  is 
an  assignment  or  a  license  does  not  depend  upon  the  name  by  which  it  calls  itself, 
but  upon  the  legal  effect  of  its  provisions.85  Such  an  assignment  may  be  either 
absolute,  or  by  way  of  mortgage,  and  liable  to  be  defeated  by  non-performance  of 
a  condition  subsequent.86 

b.  Form  and  Contents.  The  assignment  of  a  patent  must  be  an  assignment 
in  writing  signed  by  the  patentee,  his  assigns  or  legal  representatives,87  and  like 


64;  Lord  v.  Owen,  35  111.  App.  382;  Ft. 
Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haberkorn,  15  Ind. 
App.  479,  44  N.  E.  322;  Kirschmann  v. 
Lediard,  61  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  573. 

81.  Pope  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gormully,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  144  U.  S.  238,  12  S.  Ct.  637,  36  L.  ed. 
419;  Waterman  v.  MacKenzie,  138  U.  S.  252, 
11  S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923. 

The  subject-matter  of  a  patent  is  not 
partible  except  in  respect  to  territorial  as- 
signment. Suydam  v.  Day,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,654,  2  Blatchf.  20,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  88. 

In  England  part  of  a  patent  may  be  as- 
signed and  the  assignee  may  sue  as  to  that 
part.  Walton  v.  Lavater,  8  C.  B.  N.  S.  162, 
6  Jur.  N.  S.  1251,  29  L.  J.  C.  P.  275,  2  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  272,  98  E.  C.  L.  162;  Dunnicliff 
v.  Mallet,  7  C.  B.  N.  S.  209,  6  Jur.  N.  S.  252, 
29  L.  J.  C.  P.  70,  1  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  514,  8 
Wkly.  Rep.  260,  97  E.  C.  L.  209. 

82.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)   §  4898.    See  also 
Waterman  v.  MacKenzie,   138  U.   S.  252,   11 
S.  Ct.  334,   34  L.  ed.  923;   Paulus  v.  M.  M. 
Buck   Mfg.   Co.,    129   Fed.   594,   64   C.   C.   A. 
162;    Parker   v.   Haworth,    18   Fed.   Cas.   No. 
10,738,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  725,  4  McLean  370; 
Potter  v.  Holland,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,329,  4 
Blatchf.  206,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  327. 

83.  Waterman    v.    MacKenzie,    138    U.    S. 
252,  11  S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923.  -••;. 

84.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4919    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3394]. 

Reservation  of  part  of  the  right  in  the  ter- 
ritory referred  to  makes  the  instrument  a 
license,  and  not  an  assignment.  Tuttle  v. 
La  Dow,  54  Hun  (N.  Y.)  149,  7  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
277 ;  Waterman  v.  MacKenzie,  138  U.  S.  252, 
11  S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923;  Goodyear  v.  Day, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,566;  Hatfield  v.  Smith, 
C.  D.  1891,  330;  Rice  v.  Boss,  C.  D.  1891, 
400;  C.  D.  1891,  457.  See  also  infra,  XI,  B, 
1,  a. 

85.  Waterman    v.    MacKenzie,    138    U.    S. 
252,  11  S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923. 

Assignment  and  license  defined  and  distin- 
guished.— Dalzell  v.  Dueber  Watch-Case  Mfg. 
Co.,  149  U.  S.  315,  13  S.  Ct.  886,  37  L.  ed. 
749;  St.  Paul  Plow- Works  v.  Starling,  140 

[XI,  A,  3,  a] 


U.  S.  184,  11  S.  Ct.  803,  35  L.  ed.  404;  Salo- 
mons v.  U.  S.,  137  U.  S.  342,  11  S.  Ct.  88,  34 
L.  ed.  667;  Laver  v.  Dennett,  109  U.  S.  90,  3 
S.  Ct.  73,  27  L.  ed.  867;  Oliver  v.  Rumford 
Chemical  Works,  109  U.  S.  75,  3  S.  Ct.  61, 
27  L.  ed.  862;  Hayward  v.  Andrews,  108 
U.  S.  672,  1  S.  Ct.  544,  27  L.  ed.  271;  Burdell 
v.  Denig,  92  U.  S.  716,  23  L.  ed.  764;  Little- 
field  v.  Perry,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  205,  22  L.  ed. 
577;  Adams  v.  Burks,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  453, 
21  L.  ed.  700;  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.  v. 
Jenkins,  14  Wall.  (U.  S.)  452,  20  L.  ed.  777; 
Heaton  Peninsular  Button-Fastener  Co.  v. 
Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25 
C.  C.  A.  267,  78  Off.  Gaz.  171,  35  L.  R.  A. 
267;  Anderson  v.  Eiler,  50  Fed.  775,  1 
C.  C.  A.  659. 

Reservation  of  mill  right  will  not  prevent 
legal  transfer.  Russell  v.  Kern,  58  Fed.  382. 

Reservation  of  right  to  manufacture  does 
not  prevent  transfer.  Hamilton  v.  Kings - 
bury,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,984,  2  Ban.  &  A.  346, 
15  Blatchf.  64,  14  Off.  Gaz.  448. 

86.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4898. 
Mortgage  constitutes  transfer  of  legal  title. 

, —  Waterman  v.  MacKenzie,  138  U.  S.  252,  11 
S.  Ct.  334.  34  L.  ed.  923 ;  Casey  v.  Cavaroc,  96 
U.  S.  467',  24  L.  ed.  779;  Moore  v.  Marsh,  7 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  515,  19  L.  ed.  37;  Gayler  v. 
Wilder,  10  How.  (U.  S.)  477,  13  L.  ed.  504; 
Conard  v.  Atlantic  Ins.  Co.,  1  Pet.  (U.  S.) 
386,  7  L.  ed.  189;  Waterman  v.  Shipman,  55 
Fed.  982,  5  C.  C.  A.  371;  Paper  Bag  Cases, 
C.  D.  1882,  197;  Littlefield  v.  Perry,  7  Off. 
Gaz.  964. 

An  assignment  in  trust  carries  the  legal 
title.  Campbell  v.  James,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,361,  4  Ban.  &  A.  456,  17  Blatchf.  42,  18  Off. 
Gaz.  979. 

87.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4898.    See  also 
Jewett   v.   Atwood    Suspender   Co.,    100   Fed. 
647;  Baldwin  v.  Sibley,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  805, 
1   Cliff.   150;   Newton  v.   Buck,   75   Off.   Gaz. 
673;  Duvergier  v.  Fellows,  10  B.  &  C.  826,  8 
L.  J.  K.   B.  O.   S.   270,   2  M.   &  P.   384,   21 
E.  C.  L.  346  [affirmed  in  1  Cl.  &  F.  39,  6  Eng. 
Reprint  831]  ;   Dalgleish  v.  Conbov,  26  U.  C. 
C.  P.  254, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     947 


any  deed  must  be  free  from  ambiguity ; 88  but  no  particular  form  of  written 
instrument  is  required.89  An  instrument  worded  as  a  mere  license  may,  on 
account  of  the  actual  interest  conveyed,  amount  to  an  assignment.90 

e.  Validity.  The  validity  of  an  assignment  of  a  patent  is  determined  by  the 
same  considerations  as  apply  to  other  deeds  and  contracts.91 

4.  RECORDING  92  —  a.  In  General.  By  statute,  an  assignment,  grant,  or  convey- 
ance must  be  recorded  in  the  patent  office  within  three  months,  or  it  will  be  void 
as  against  any  subsequent  purchaser  without  notice.93  Within  that  period,  the 


Consent  in  writing  to  transfer  by  another 
is  valid.  Sherman  v.  Champlain  Transp.  Co., 
31  Vt.  162. 

88.  Dudley  v.  Suddoth,  91  Ala.  349,  8  So. 
873;  Hill  v/Thuermer,  13  Ind.  351;  Harmon 
v.  Bird,  22  Wend.    (N.  Y.)    113;   Washburn, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Haish,  4  Fed.  900,  10  Biss. 
65 ;  Clark  i>.  Scott/  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,833,  9 
Blatchf.   301,   5   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   245,   2   Off. 
Gaz.  4 ;  United  Nickel  Co.  v.  American  Nickel- 
Plating  Works,   24   Fed.   Cas.  No.    14,405,   4 
Ban.  &  A.  74. 

Mistake  in  name  of  the  invention  trans- 
ferred is  not  vital.  Holden  v.  Curtis,  2  N.  H. 
61 ;  Case  v.  Morey,  1  N.  H.  347. 

Designation  of  assignee  by  last  name  only 
is  sufficient  where  his  identity  is  certain. 
Fisk  v.  Hollander,  MacArthur  &  M.  (D.  C.) 
355. 

Assignment  to  a  person  named  "et  al."  is 
valid.  Bliss  v.  Reed,  102  Fed.  903  [affirmed 
in  106  Fed.  314,  45  C.  C.  A.  304]. 

89.  Canda  v.  Michigan  Malleable  Iron  Co., 
123    Fed.    95    [modified    in    124    Fed.    436]; 
D.  M.  Sechler  Carriage  Co.  v.  Deere,  etc.,  Co., 
113  Fed.  285,  51  C.  C.  A.  242;  Piaget  Novelty 
Co.  v.  Headley,  107  Fed.  134  [affirmed  in  108 
Fed.  870,  48  C.  C.  A.  116];  Jonathan  Mills 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Whitehurst,  56  Fed.  589;  Regan 
Vapor-Engine  Co.  v.  Pacific  Gas-Engine  Co., 
49  Fed.  68,  1  C.  C.  A.  169;  Lowry  v.  Cowles 
Electric  Co.,  C.  D.  1893,  549. 

A  general  transfer  of  property  carries  pat- 
ents. Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trimble,  10 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  367,  19  L.  ed.  948;  Shelby 
Steel  Tube  Co.  v.  Delaware  Seamless  Tube 
Co.,  151  Fed.  64  [affirmed  in  160  Fed.  928]; 
Schaum  v.  Baker,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,440. 

90.  Douglass  v.  Campbell,  24  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
241 ;   Union  Switch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson  R. 
Signal    Co.,    61    Fed.    940,    10    C.    C.    A.    176 
[reversing  59  Fed.  20]  ;  Ritter  v.  Serrell,  20 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,866,  2  Blatchf.  379;  Lowry 
v.  Cowles  Electric  Co.,  C.  D.  1893,  549 ;  Rapp 
v.  Killing,  C.  D.  1890,  483. 

91.  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  14 
Wall.    (U.    S.)    452,   20   L.   ed.   777;    Kansas 
City   Hay-Press    Co.    t;.   Devol,    72    Fed.    717 
[reversed  on  other   grounds   in  81    Fed.   726, 
26    C.    C.    A.    578] ;    National    Folding   Box, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  American  Paper  Pail,  etc.,  Co.,  55 
Fed.    488;    Gibson    v.    Cook,    10    Fed.    Cas. 
No.    5,393,    2   Blatchf.    144,   Fish.    Pat.    Rep. 
415. 

Lack  of  consideration  invalidates  the  as- 
signment of  a  patent.  Cowles  v.  Rochester 
Folding  Box  Co.,  81  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  414,  80 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  811  [affirmed  in  179  N.  Y.  87, 
71  N.  E.  468]. 


An  assignment  by  a  person  of  unsound 
mind  is  void.  Colburn  v.  Van  Velzer,  11  Fed. 
795,  3  McCrary  650. 

Assignment  void  for  fraud  see  Goldsmith 
17.  Kooprnan,  140  Fed.  618. 

Misrepresentations. —  Misrepresentations  by 
a  vendor  of  a  patent  right  entitle  the  vendee 
to  rescind  where  they  amount  to  an  untrue 
statement  of  some  present  fact  (Bell  v.  Felt, 
102  111.  App.  218;  Lederer  v.  Yule,  67  N.  J. 
Eq.  65,  57  Atl.  309;  Lindsay  v.  Roraback,  57 
N.  C.  124;  Hull  v.  Fields,  76  Va.  594)  ;  but 
a  mere  promise  or  prediction  is  not  sufficient 
(Lederer  v.  Yule,  supra],  and  misrepresenta- 
tions amounting  to  mere  "  trade  talk "  will 
not  vitiate  a  sale  (Des  Moines  Ins.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Intire,  99  Iowa  50,  68  N.  W.  563). 

Where  the  whole  transaction  is  founded 
upon  a  mistake  of  fact,  the  sale  is  void. 
Burrall  v.  Jewett,  2  Paige  (N.  Y.)  134. 

92.  Agreement   for  assignment   see   supra, 
XI,  A,  2,  c. 

Assignment    of   license    see    infra,    XI,    B, 
1,  f. 
Record  as  cadence  see  infra,  XIII,  C,  14,  h. 

93.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4898. 
Purchaser  may   rely   on   record  see   Gates 

Iron  Works  v.  Eraser,  153  U.  S.  332,  14  S.  Ct. 
883,  38  L.  ed.  734;  Paulus  v.  M.  M.  Buck 
Mfg.  Co.,  129  Fed.  594,  64  C.  C.  A.  162; 
Secombe  v.  Campbell,  2  Fed.  357,  18  Blatchf. 
108;  Campbell  v.  James,  2  Fed.  338,  18 
Blatchf.  92;  Boyd  v.  McAlpin,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,748,  3  McLean  427,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
277;  Newell  v.  West,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,150, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  113,  13  Blatchf.  114,  9  Off.  Gaz. 
1110,  8  Off.  Gaz.  598. 

Record  within  three  months  fixes  title  see 
Aspinwall  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gill,  32  Fed.  697  [af- 
firmed in  140  U.  S.  669,  11  S.  Ct.  1015,  35 
L.  ed.  597]. 

English  practice. — Assignee  cannot  sue  un- 
til the  deed  is  recorded.  Chollet  v.  Hoffman, 
7  E.  &  B.  686,  3  Jur.  N.  S.  935,  26  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
249,  5  Wkly.  Rep.  573,  90  E.  C.  L.  686.  As- 
signment is  good  against  the  assignor,  al- 
though not  recorded.  Hassall  v.  Wright,  L.  R. 
10  Eq.  509,  40  L.  J.  Ch.  145,  18  Wkly.  Rep. 
821.  Purchaser  with  notice  has  no  equity. 
New  Ixion  Tyre,  etc.,  Co.  17.  Spilsbury,  [1898] 
2  Ch.  484,  67  L.  J.  Ch.  557,  79  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  229  [affirming  [1898]  2  Ch.  137,  67 
L.  J.  Ch.  424,  78  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  543,  46 
Wkly.  Rep.  567]. 

Estoppel  to  allege  failure  to  record  see 
Hassall  v.  Wright,  L.  R.  10  Eq.  509,  40  L.  J. 
Ch.  145,  18  Wkly.  Rep.  821.  High  court  of 
justice  has  jurisdiction  over  register  and  may 
expunge  or  order  correction.  In  re  Horsley, 

[XI,  A,  4,  a] 


948     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


three  months,  an  unrecorded  prior  assignment  will  prevail.94  This  statute  is 
merely  directory  for  the  protection  of  bona  fide  purchasers  without  notice,  and 
does  not  require  the  recording  of  an  assignment  within  three  months  as  a  pre- 
requisite to  its  validity.95  Hence,  as  between  the  parties  and  as  against  everyone 
except  a  subsequent  purchaser  without  notice,  an  unrecorded  assignment  is  good.96 
The  assignment  of  a  patent  not  yet  issued  need  not  be  recorded.97  Nor  is  it 
necessary  that  an  assignment  of  a  patent  by  a  bankruptcy  court  to  the  assignee 
of  the  owner  of  the  patent  be  recorded.98 

b.  Notice.  An  unrecorded  written  assignment  is  good  against  a  subsequent 
purchaser  having  actual  or  constructive  notice  of  it.99 

e.  Acknowledgment  Before  Notary.  If  the  assignment  is  acknowledged  before 
a  notary  public  or  certain  other  officers,  the  certificate  of  the  notary  or  other  offi- 
cer is  prima  facie  evidence  of  execution.1  The  acknowledgment  of  an  assignment 
of  a  patent  relates  to  the  date  of  the  assignment.2 

5.  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION  —  a.  In  General.  Assignments  and  grants  of 
patent  rights  are  subject  to  the  same  rules  of  construction  as  other  contracts.3 


L.  R.  8  Eq.  475,  39  L.  J.  Ch.  157,  21  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  345,  17  Wkly.  Rep.  1054;  In  re 
Morey,  25  Beav.  581,  6  Wkly.  Rep.  612,  53 
Eng.  Reprint  759;  In  re  Morgan,  24  Wkly. 
Rep.  245.  Master  of  rolls  may  expunge  entry 
wrongfully  made.  Re  Green,  24  Beav.  145,  53 
Eng.  Reprint  312;  In  re  Horsley,  L.  R.  4  Ch. 
784,  17  Wkly.  Rep.  1000. 

Canadian  practice. — Assignment  is  good  be- 
tween parties  without  record,  but  not  against 
subsequent  purchasers.  Doyon  v.  Canadian 
Fire  Extinguishing  Co.,  14  Quebec  Super.  Ct. 
367. 

94.  Gibson  v.  Cook,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,393, 
2  Blatchf.  144,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  415. 

95.  Winfrey  v.  Gallatin,  72  Mo.  App.  191; 
Pitts  i\  Whitman,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,196,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  189,  2  Story  609. 

96.  Black  v.  Stone,  33  Ala.   327;   Peck  v. 
Bacon,  18  Conn.  377;  Hildreth  v.  Turner,  17 
111.  184;  McKernan  v.  Kite,  6  Ind.  428;  Moore 
v.  Bare,  11  Iowa  198;  Sone  v.  Palmer,  28  Mo. 
539;  Holden  v.  Curtis,  2  N.  H.  61;  Home  v. 
Chatham,  64  Tex.  36;   Maurice  v.  Devol,  23 
W.  Va.  247 ;  Shelby  Steel  Tube  Co.  v.  Dela- 
ware Seamless  Tube  Co.,   151  Fed.  64;   Boyd 
v.  McAlpin,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,748,  3  McLean 
427,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  277 ;  Case  v.  Redfield,  5 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,494,  4  McLean  526,  2  Robb 
Pat.   Cas.   741;    Hall  v.  Speer,   11   Fed.   Cas. 
No.  5,947",  1  Pittsb.  (Pa.)   513;  Pitts  v.  Whit- 
man,  19   Fed.   Cas.  No.   11,196,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  189,  2  Story  609;  Turnbull  v.  Weir  Plow 
Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,244,  1  Ban.  &  A.  544, 
6   Biss.  225,   7   Off.  Gaz.    173;   Van  Hook  v. 
Wood,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,854. 

Purchaser  without  consideration. — An  un- 
recorded assignment  is  good  against  a  later 
assignment  without  consideration.  Saxton  v. 
Aultman,  15  Ohio  St.  471. 

97.  Wright    v.    Randel,    8    Fed.    591,    19 
Blatchf.  495. 

98.  Prime   v.   Brandon   Mfg.    Co.,    19    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,421,  4  Ban.  &  A.  379,  16  Blatchf. 
453. 

99.  Coleman  v.  Ryan,  33  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  715, 
68  N.  Y.  Suppl.  253 ;  Hapgood  v.  Rosenstock, 
23  Fed.  86,  23  Blatchf.  95 ;  Dare  v.  Boylston, 
6  Fed.  493,  18  Blatchf.  548;  Ashcroft  v.  Wai- 

[XI,  A,  4,  a] 


worth,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  580,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
528,  Holmes  152,  2  Off.  Gaz.  546;  Continental 
Windmill  Co.  v.  Empire  Windmill  Co.,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,142,  8  Blatchf.  295,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  428;  Valentine  v.  Marshal,  28  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  16,812o. 

Knowledge  of  facts  sufficient  to  put  a  party 
on  inquiry  will  bind  him  as  notice.  Stanton 
Mfg.  Co.  i?.  McFarland,  (N.  J.  Ch.  1895)  30 
Atl.  1058  [affirmed  in  53  N.  J.  Eq.  649,  33 
Atl.  962,  51  Am.  St.  Rep.  647] ;  Auburn  But- 
ton Co.  17.  Sylvester,  72  Hun  (N.  Y.)  498,  25 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  237  [affirmed  in  147  N.  Y.  714, 
42  N.  E.  721]  ;  Jonathan  Mills  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Whitehurst,  72  Fed.  496,  19  C.  C.  A.  130; 
National  Heeling-Mach.  Co.  v.  Abbott,  70 
Fed.  54;  Waterman  v.  Shipman,  55  Fed.  982, 
5  C.  C.  A.  371;  Kearney  v.  Lehigh  Valley  R. 
Co.,  27  Fed.  699;  Hamilton  v.  Kingsbury,  4 
Fed.  428,  17  Blatchf.  460;  Prime  v.  Brandon 
Mfg.  Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,421,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
379,  16  Blatchf.  453. 

Notice  held  insufficient  see  Regan  Vapor- 
Engine  Co.  v.  Pacific  Gas-Engine  Co.,  49  Fed. 
68,  1  C.  C.  A.  169. 

A  purchaser  with  notice  holds  in  trust  for 
the  first  assignee.  Whitney  17.  Burr,  115  111. 
289,  3  N.  E.  434;  Pontiac  Knit  Boot  Co.  v. 
Merino  Shoe  Co.,  31  Fed.  286. 

1.  Act  March  3,  1897,  29  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  693. 
Act  applies  to  instruments  executed  before 

its  passage. —  Lanyon  Zinc  Co.  v.  Brown,  115 
Fed.  150,  53  C.  C.  A.  354;  De  Laval  Separator 
Co.  v.  Vermont  Farm-Mach.  Co.,  109  Fed. 
813. 

The  signature  of  the  assignor  need  not  be 
proved  where  the  assignment  is  duly  acknowl- 
edged before  a  notary.  New  York  Pharmical 
Assoc.  17.  Tilden,  14  Fed.  740,  21  Blatchf.  190. 
Conversely,  it  is  not  essential  to  the  validity 
of  an  assignment  of  a  patent  that  it  should 
be  acknowledged,  where  the  genuineness  of 
the  assignor's  signature  is  proved.  Clancy  v. 
Troy  Belting,  etc.,  Co.,  152  Fed.  188  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  157  Fed.  554]. 

2.  Murray  Co.  i?.  Continental  Gin  Co.,  149 
Fed.  989,  79  C.  C.  A.  499. 

3.  Intent  rather  than  technical  form  con- 
trols.—  See  Cowles  Electric  Smelting,  etc.,  Co. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     949 


b.  Warranty.  The  assignment  of  a  patent  creates  an  implied  warranty  of 
title  in  the  assignor,4  but  no  warranty  that  the  patent  is  valid,5  or  that  the 
invention  does  not  infringe  prior  patents.6 

e.  Rights  and  Interests  Conveyed  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  Within  the  limits  of 
the  grant  the  assignee  has  the  same  rights  as  were  formerly  possessed  by  the  pat- 
entee.7 An  assignment  of  all  the  grantor's  right,  title,  and  interest  in  and  to  a 
certain  patent  carries  only  the  existing  interest  of  the  grantor  at  the  term  of  the 
assignment.8  Words  restricting  the  grant  to  such  patents  as  the  grantor  "holds 
in  his  own  right "  do  not  exclude  patents  of  which  his  tenure  is  not  exclusive.9 
An  assignment  of  an  invention  as  described  in  the  specifications  filed  covers  all 
the  devices  claimed  therein  to  be  patentable,  and  not  merely  such  as  are  covered 
by  the  patent  as  ultimately  issued.10  But  an  assignment  of  all  right,  title,  and 
interest  in  an  improvement  of  a  machine  already  patented  conveys  no  interest  in 
the  original  patent.11  An  assignee  may  bring  suit  in  his  own  name  and  may 
transfer  the  whole  or  a  part  of  his  interest.12 


v.  Lowrey,  79  Fed.  331,  24  C.  C.  A.  616; 
Kearney  *,  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  27  Fed. 
699. 

Contemporaneous  instruments  referring  to 
same  matter  construed  together  see  Ham- 
mond i).  Mason,  etc.,  Organ  Co.,  92  U.  S.  724, 
23  L.  ed.  767;  Levy  v.  Dattlebaum,  63  Fed. 
992;  Regan  Vapor-Engine  Co.  v.  Pacific  Gas- 
Engine  Co.,  47  Fed.  511  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  49  Fed.  68,  1  C.  C.  A.  169]. 

Particular  contracts  construed  see  Stand- 
ard Combustion  Co.  v.  Farr,  9  Ohio  Dec.  (Re- 
print) 509,  14  Cine.  L.  Bui.  201;  Reese's  Ap- 
peal, 122  Pa.  St.  392,  15  Atl.  807;  Geiser 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Frick  Co.,  92  Fed.  189 ;  Lowry  v. 
Cowles  Electric  Smelting,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Fed. 
488;  Adriance  v.  McCormick  Harvesting 
Mach.  Co.,  55  Fed.  288  [affirmed  in  56  Fed. 
918,  6  C.  C.  A.  168];  Siebert  Cylinder  Oil- 
Cup  Co.  v.  Beggs,  32  Fed.  790;  Buckley  v. 
Sawyer  Mfg.  Co.,  7  Fed.  358,  2  McCrary  350 ; 
Emigh  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  4,448,  1  Biss.  400,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  387. 

4.  Macon   Knitting   Co.   v.   Leicester   Mills 
Co.,  65  N.  J.  Eq.  138,  55  Atl.  401 ;  Herzog  v. 
Heyman,  8  Misc.   (N.  Y.)  27,  28  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
74;   Carman  v.  Trade,  25  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.) 
440;  Faulks  v.  Kamp,  3  Fed.  898,  17  Blatchf. 
432. 

Purchaser  must  investigate  prior  claims  of 
which  he  has  notice  sufficient  to  put  him  on 
inquiry.  Chambers  v.  Smith,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,582,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  12,  7  Phila.  (Pa.) 
575. 

5.  Connecticut. —  Bull    v.    Pratt,    1    Conn. 
342. 

Indiana. —  Detrick  v.  McGlone,  46  Ind.  291. 

Maine. —  Elmer  v.  Pennel,  40  Me.  430. 

Massachusetts. —  Gilmore  v.  Aiken,  118 
Mass.  94. 

Michigan. —  Brazel  v.  Smith,  141  Mich.  628, 
104  N.  W.  1097. 

New  Jersey. —  Barclay  v.  Charles  Roome 
Parmele  Co.,  70  N.  J.  Eq.  218,  61  Atl.  715; 
Macon  Knitting  Co.  v.  Leicester  Mills  Co.,  65 
N.  J.  Eq.  138,  55  Atl.  401. 

New  York. —  Nilsson  v.  De  Haven,  47  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  537,  62  N.  Y.  Suppl.  506  [affirmed 
in  168  N.  Y.  656,  61  N.  E.  1131].  But  see 
Herzog  v.  Heyman,  151  N.  Y.  587,  45  N.  E. 
1127,  56  Am.  St.  Rep.  646. 


United  States. —  Milligan  v.  Lalance,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  21  Fed.  570. 

England. —  Otto  v.  Singer,  62  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  220. 

6.  Rhodes  v.  Ashurst,  176  111.  351,  52  N.  E. 
118;     Standard     Button     Fastening     Co.     v. 
Harney,  155  Mass.  507,  29  N.  E.  1148;  Home 
v.  Hoyle,  27  Fed.  216. 

An  express  warranty  against  infringement 
may  be  made.  Green  v.  Watson,  10  Ont.  App. 
113  [affirming  2  Ont.  627]. 

7.  U.    S.   Rev.    St.    (1878)    §§    4895,   4898 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3385].     See  also 
Waterman  v.  Mackenzie,   138  U.   S.   252,   11 
S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923;  Gayler  v.  Wilder, 
10  How.   (U.  S.)   477,  13  L.  ed.  504;  Werder- 
man  v.  Soci6t6  Generate  d'Electricit£,  19  Ch. 
D.  246,  45  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  514,  30  Wkly.  Rep. 
33. 

After  assignment  the  assignor  cannot  make 
or  sell  the  invention  and  he  may  be  enjoined 
from  so  doing.  Bennett  v.  Wortman,  2  Ont. 
L.  Rep.  292. 

8.  Waterman  v.  Shipman,   130  N.  Y.  301, 
29   N.    E.    Ill;    Regan   Vapor-Engine    Co.    v. 
Pacific  Gas-Engine  Co.,  47  Fed.  511  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  49  Fed.  68,   1   C.  C.  A. 
169];    Turnbull   v.   Weir  Plow   Co.,    14   Fed. 
108,   9   Biss.    334;    Ashcroft   v.   Walworth,    2 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    580,    5    Fish.   Pat.    Cas.    528, 
Holmes    152,   2    Off.    Gaz.    546;    Goodyear   v. 
Gary,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,562,  4  Blatchf.  271, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  424 ;  Turnbull  v.  Weir  Plow 
Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,244,  1  Ban.  &  A.  544, 
6  Biss.  225,  7  Off.  Gaz.  173. 

9.  Lowry  v.  Cowles  Electric  Smelting,  etc., 
Co.,  56   Fed.  488;   Wetherill  v.   Passaic  Zinc 
Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,465,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
50,  2  Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)   385. 

10.  Puetz  v.  Bransford,  31  Fed.  458. 

11.  Leach  v.  Dresser,  69  Me.  129. 

12.  U.  S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4919    [U.  S. 
Comp.    St.    (1901)    p.   3394];    Waterman   v. 
Mackenzie,   138  U.  S.  252,  11  S.  Ct.  334,  34 
L.  ed.  923 ;  Boesch  v.  Graff,  133  U.  S.  697,  10 
S.  Ct.  378,  33  L.  ed.  787 ;  Rude  v.  Westcott, 
130  U.   S.    152,  9  S.  Ct.  463,  32  L.  ed.  888; 
D.  M.  Sechler  Carriage  Co.  v.  Deere,  etc.,  Co., 
113  Fed  285,  51  C.  C.  A.  242;  Paine  v.  Trask, 
56  Fed.  233,  5  C.  C.  A.  497 ;  Cook  v.  Bidwell, 
8  Fed.  452. 

[XI,  A,  5,  C,  (I)] 


950     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


(n)  EIGHTS  IN  EXTENDED  TERM™  The  extent  to  which  an  assignee  may 
enjoy  the  benefits  of  an  extended  term  of  a  patent  depends  entirely  upon  the 
stipulations  of  the  contract.14  The  operation  of  such  an  instrument  is  not  lim- 
ited to  the  term  specified  in  the  patent  where  the  instrument  contains  apt  words 
to  show  that  the  parties  intended  that  its  operation  should  be  more  comprehen- 
sive;15 but  in  the  absence  of  a  specific  provision  to  that  effect  an  assignment  of 
letters  patent  does  not  carry  with  it  any  interest  in  a  subsequently  extended  term.16 
Where,  however,  the  conveyance  is  of  the  invention,  before  the  issue  of  letters 
patent  therefor,  the  assignee  is  entitled,  unless  the  instrument  of  assignment 
shows  a  different  intention,  to  obtain  a  renewal  at  the  expiration  of  the  original 
term  17 

(in)  RIGHTS  IN  REISSUE.  Where  after  assignment  a  patent  is  reissued  the 
rights  of  the  assignee  are  the  same  under  a  reissued  patent  as  under  the  original.18 
But  the  assignee  must  consent  to  or  ratify  such  reissue.19 

(iv)  AFTER -ACQUIRED  TITLE.  Where  an  instrument  of  transfer  is  made 
when  the  assignor  has  no  title,  an  after-acquired  title  inures  to  the  benefit  of  the 
assignee.20 

(v)  RIGHTS  OF  ACTION  FOR  PAST  INFRINGEMENT.  The  assignee  of  a  patent 
does  not  acquire  a  right  of  action  for  past  infringement  unless  so  specified  in  the 
assignment.21  But  when  the  assignment  includes,  expressly  or  impliedly,  all 


13.  Rights   of   licensees   see   infra,   XI,   B, 
1,  c. 

14.  Mitchell  v.  Hawley,   16  Wall.    (U.  S.) 
544,   21    L.   ed.    322;    Adams  v.   Bridge  water 
Iron    Co.,    26    Fed.    324;     Fire    Extinguisher 
Mfg.   Co.  v.  Graham,   16  Fed.  543;   Aiken  v. 
Dolan,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  110,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Gas. 
197;  Chase  v.  Walker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,630, 
3   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   120;   Day  v.  Union  India- 
Rubber  Co.,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,691,  3  Blatchf. 
488  [affirmed  in  20  How.  216,  15  L.  ed.  883] ; 
Van  Hook  v.  Wood,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,855. 

15.  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Jenkins,  14 
Wall.    (U.   S.)    452,   20  L.  ed.  777;   Philadel- 
phia, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trimble,  10  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
367,  19  L.  ed.  948;   Case  v.  Redfield,  5  Fed. 
Cas.  No.   2,494,   4  McLean  526,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  741;   Chase  v.  Walker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,630,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   120;   Gear  v.  Gros- 
venor.   10  Fed.   Cas.  No.   5,291,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  314,  Holmes  215,  3  Off.  Gaz.  380;  Gear 
v.   Holmes,   10   Fed.   Cas.  No.   5,292,   6   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  595 ;  Goodyear  t*.  Cary,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,562.  4  Blatchf.  271,   1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
424;  Pitts  v.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,193,  3 
Blatchf.  201;   Ruggles  v.  Eddy,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,117,  10  Blatchf.  52,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
581;  Sayles  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,417,  3  Ban.  &  A.  219,  5  Dill.  561; 
Thayer  v.  Wales,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,872,  5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  130;  Wilson  v.  Turner,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.    17,845,  Fish.   Pat.   Rep.   28,   Taney 
278  \affirmed  in  4  How.  712,  11  L.  ed.  1171]. 

16.  Goodyear  v.  Day,  6  Duer   (N.  Y.)   154; 
WTilson  v.  Rousseau,  4  How.   (U.  S.)   646,  11 
L.  ed.  1141;  Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    1,559,    Fish.   Pat.    Rep.    376,    5   McLean 
158;    Brooks    v.    Bicknell,    4    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,945,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  65,  4  McLean  64;  Gear 
v.  Grosvenor,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,291,  6  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  314,  Holmes  215,  3  Off.  Gaz.  380; 
Gibson   v.   Cook,    10   Fed.   Cas.   No.   5,393,   2 
Blatchf.  144,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  415;  Goodyear 
V.  Hullihen,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,573,  3  Fish. 

[XI.  A,  5,  e,  (ii)] 


Pat.  Cas.  251,  2  Hughes  492;  Jenkins  v. 
Nicolson  Pavement  Co.,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,273,  1  Abb.  567,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  201 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  14  Wall. 
452,  20  L.  ed.  777];  Phelps  v.  Comstock,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,075,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  215,  4 
McLean  353;  Waterman  v.  Wallace,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,261,  2  Ban.  &  A.  126,  13  Blatchf. 
128;  Woodworth  v.  Sherman,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  18,019,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  257,  3  Story 
171. 

No  right  to  extension  implied. —  Johnson 
v.  Wilcox,  etc.,  Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  27  Fed. 
689,  23  Blatchf.  531;  Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  3 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,559,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  376,  5 
McLean  158;  Mowry  v.  Grand  St.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,893,  10  Blatchf.  89,  5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  586 ;  Wetherill  v.  Passaic  Zinc 
Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,465,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  50,  2  Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  385. 

17.  Hendrie   v.    Sayles,    98   U.    S.   546,   25 
L.  ed.  176. 

18.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4895   [U.   S, 
Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.   3385].     See  also  Gay- 
lord  1?.   Case,  5   Ohio  Dec.    (Reprint)    413,   5 
Am.  L.  Rec.  494;  Wilson  t>.  Rousseau,  4  How. 
(U.  S.)    646,  11  L.  ed.  1141;   Potter  v.  Hol- 
land, 19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,329,  4  Blatchf.  206, 

1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  327;   Smith  v.  Mercer,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,078,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  529. 

19.  Burdell  v.  Denig,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,142, 

2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   588;   Meyer  v.  Bailey,   17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,516,  2  Ban.  &  A.  73,  8  Off. 
Gaz.  437. 

20.  Gottfried  v.  Miller,  104  U.  S.  521,  26 
L.  ed.  851;  Keene  Mach.  Co.  v.  Barratt,  100 
Fed.  590,  40  C.  C.  A.  571;   Curran  v.  Burd- 
sall,   20  Fed.   835;    Faulks  v.  Kamp,   3   Fed. 
898,  17  Blatchf.  432;   Emmons  v.  Slaudin,  8 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,470,  2  Ban.  &  A.  199,  9  Off. 
Gaz.  352.    Compare  Perry  v.  Corning,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,004,  7  Blatchf.  195. 

21.  Superior  Drill  Co.  v.  Ney  Mfg.  Co.,  98 
Fed.    734;    Jones   v.    Berger,    58    Fed.    1006; 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     951 


claims  for  past  infringements,  the  assignee  may  sue  therefor.22  Mere  intention, 
however,  not  signified  in  the  assignment,  to  include  therein  claims  for  infringe- 
ments previously  committed,  will  not  suffice  to  invest  the  assignee  with  any  title 
to  those  claims.23 

d.  Covenants,  Conditions,  and  Restrictions  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  Covenants 
and  conditions  in  an  assignment  do  not  prevent  it  from  operating  as  an  absolute 
assignment  where  they  are  conditions  subsequent,  sucli  as  a  stipulation  as  to 
division  of  royalty  or  profits.24  But  conditions  precedent  must  be  performed 
before  an  assignment  will  become  operative.25 

(n)  REMEDY  FOR  BREACH  OF  CONDITIONS — (A)  Rescission  or  Cancellation. 
For  the  non-payment  of  royalties  or  other  non-performance  of  conditions,  a  for- 
feiture may  be  enforced  ;  but  in  the  case  of  a  condition  subsequent,  the  title 
which  had  theretofore  vested  remains  in  the  assignee  until  the  forfeiture  is 
enforced.26  If  it  is  so  stipulated,  however,  the  title  will  revert  to  the  assignor  by 
operation  of  law,  upon  the  breach  of  a  condition.27  The  general  rules  governing 
the  rescission  and  cancellation  of  written  instruments  are  applicable  to  contracts 
for  assignment  of  patents.28  A  patentee  may,  by  his  acquiescence,  estop  himself 
to  claim  the  cancellation  of  an  assignment.29 

(B)  Recovery  of  Damages.  Either  party  may  recover  damages  for  a  breach 
of  a  condition  or  covenant.30 


Emerson  v.  Hubbard,  34  Fed.  327;  Kaolatype 
Engraving  Co.  v.  Hoke,  30  Fed.  444;  May  v. 
Juneau  County,  30  Fed.  241;  New  York 
Grape  Sugar  Co.  v.  Buffalo  Grape  Sugar  Co., 
24  Fed.  604;  New  York  Grape  Sugar  Co.  v. 
Buffalo  Grape  Sugar  Co.,  18  Fed.  638,  21 
Blatchf.  519;  Dibble  v.  Augur,  7  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,879,  7  Blatchf.  86. 

The  original  owner  of  a  patent,  who  has  as- 
signed it,  may  maintain  an  action  for  an  in- 
fringement committed  during  the  time  of  his 
ownership.  Moore  v.  Marsh,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
515,  19  L.  ed.  37. 

22.  May  v.  Saginaw  County,  32  Fed.  629; 
May  v.  Logan  County,  30  Fed.  250;  Adams 
v.  Bellaire  Stamping  Co.,  25  Fed.  270;  Con- 
solidated Oil  Well  Packer  Co.  v.  Eaton,   12 
Fed.  865;  Merriam  v.  Smith,  11  Fed.  588. 

23.  Emerson  v.  Hubbard,  34  Fed.  327. 

24.  Church    v.    Anti-Kalsomine    Co.,     138 
Mich.  211,  101  N.  W.  230;  Ford  v.  Dyer,  148 
Mo.  528,  49  S.  W.  1091;  Boesch  v.  Graff,  133 
U.  S.  697,  10  S.  Ct.  378,  33  L.  ed.  787 ;  Rude 
v.  Westcott,  130  U.  S.   152,  9  S.  Ct.  463,  32 
L.  ed.  888;  Janney  v.  Pancoast  International 
Ventilator  Co.,  122  Fed.  535 ;  D.  M.  Sechler 
Carriage  Co.  v.  Deere,  etc.,  Co.,  113  Fed.  285, 
51  C.  C.  A.  242;  Day  v.  Stellman,  7  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,690,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  487;  Cartwright 
17.  Amatt,  2  B.  &  P.  43. 

Conveyance  on  condition  as  creating1  trust 
see  Duff  v.  Gilliland,  139  Fed.  16,  71  C.  C.  A. 
428. 

A  clause  appointing  the  assignee  attorney 
of  the  patentee,  with  authority  to  use  his 
name  whenever  they  deem  proper  in  the 
management  of  the  business,  does  not  re- 
strict the  interest  or  power  of  the  assignee. 
Rude  v.  Westcott,  130  U.  S.  152,  9  S.  Ct.  463, 
32  L,  ed.  888. 

Particular  assignments  with  conditions  con- 
strued see  Scheurle  t\  Husbands,  65  N.  J.  L. 
681,  48  Atl.  1118;  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  Com.,  2  Pa. 
Cas.  299,  3  Atl.  825;  Tecktonius  v.  Scott,  110 


Wis.  441,  86  N.  W.  672;  Holmes  v.  McGill, 
108  Fed.  238,  47  C.  C.  A.  296;  Bracher  v. 
Hat-Sweat  Mfg.  Co.,  49  Fed.  921. 

25.  Thourot  v.  Holub,  81  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
634,    80   N.   Y.    Suppl.    1083 ;    Arnold   Mono- 
phase Electric   Co.  v.  Wagner  Electric  Mfg. 
Co.,  148  Fed.  234;   Grier  v.  Baynes,  49  Fed. 
363;  Hull  v.  Pitrat,  45  Fed.  94  [affirmed  in 
145  U.  S.  650,  12  S.  Ct.  986,  36  L.  ed.  847]. 

26.  Littlefield  v.  Perry,  21  Wall.    (U.  S.) 
205,  22  L.  ed.  577;  Stanley  Rule,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Bailey,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,287,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
297,  14  Blatchf.  510. 

Where  the  remedy  at  law  is  sufficient,  a 
court  of  equity  will  not  interfere.  Osborne 
v.  Jullion,  3  Drew.  596,  26  L.  J.  Ch.  6,  4 
Wkly.  Rep.  767,  61  Eng.  Reprint  1031. 

27.  Pierpoint  Boiler  Co.  v.  Penn  Iron,  etc., 
Co.,  75  Fed.  289. 

28.  See  Morgan  v.  National  Pump  Co.,  74 
Mo.  App.  155   (holding  that  mere  allegations 
of   insolvency,    failure    to    pay    royalty,    and 
failure  to  perform  conditions  without  allega- 
tion of  fraud  or  offer  to  return  consideration 
are  insufficient  to  justify  equitable  interposi- 
tion  in  rescinding   an   assignment  of   a   pat- 
ent) ;  Dow  v.  Harkin,  67  N.  H.  383,  29  Atl. 
846;  Andrews  v.  Fielding,  20  Fed.  123. 

29.  Duff    17.    Gilliland,     139    Fed.    16,    71 
C.  C.  A.  428  [reversing  135  Fed.  581]. 

30.  Georgia. —  Barrett  v.  Verdery,   93   Ga. 
546,  21  S.   E.  64;   Hornsby  v.  Butts,  85  Ga. 
694,  11  S.  E.  846. 

Illinois.—  Lord  v.  Owen,  35  111.  App.  382. 

Indiana. —  Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Haber- 
korn,  15  Ind.  App.  479,  44  N.  E.  322. 

Massachusetts. — Weed  v.  Draper,  104  Mass. 
28. 

Missouri. —  Standard  Fireproofing  Co.  v.  St. 
Louis  Expanded  Metal  Fireproofing  Co.,  177 
Mo.  559,  76  S.  W.  1008. 

New  Jersey. —  Johnson  v.  Johnson  R.  Signal 
Co.,  57  N.  J.  Eq.  79,  40  Atl.  193. 

Neto  York.—  Warth  v.  Liebovitz,  179  N.  Y. 

[XI,  A,  5,  d,  (H),  (B)] 


952     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


6.  RIGHTS,  REMEDIES,  AND  LIABILITIES  OF  PARTIES  31  —  a.  In  General.  The  assignee 
acquires  no  other  or  greater  rights  than  were  possessed  by  the  assignor  and  is 
bound  by  the  legal  consequences  of  the  assignor's  acts.82 

b.  As  to  Each  Other  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  In  the  absence  of  warranty  equity 
can  give  no  relief  to  the  assignee  of  a  patent  found  to  be  void  unless  fraud  is 
shown.33  To  rescind  a  contract  of  sale  of  a  patent  right  on  the  ground  of  false 
and  fraudulent  representations,  such  representations  must  have  been  of  material 
facts,  constituting  an  inducement  to  the  contract,  whereon  the  purchaser  had  a 
right  to  rely,  and  did  rely,  and  was  thereby  misled  to  his  injury.34  Fraudulent 
representations,  in  order  to  afford  a  ground  for  relief,  must  be  of  facts  then  exist- 
ing or  preexisting,  as  distinguished  from  an  opinion,  a  promise  or  an  assumed 
future  fact.  Furthermore  these  facts  must  be  of  a  concrete  character,  as  distin- 
guished from  a  truth  or  principle.35  Representations  by  the  seller  of  a  patent 
that  the  same  is  valid  and  does  not  interfere  with  any  prior  patent  must  be 
regarded  as  matters  of  opinion,  and  not  as  statements  of  facts,36  unless  it  appears 
that  there  was  a  prior  patent  covering  the  identical  invention,  and  that  the  seller 
was  aware  thereof.37  So  a  statement  that  letters  patent  are  new  and  useful,  if 
untrue,  is  not  cause  for  avoiding  a  sale  of  the  letters  made  in  reliance  on  such 
statement.38  Nor  is  a  mere  false  assertion  of  value,  when  no  warranty  is  intended, 
ground  of  relief  to  a  purchaser,  because  the  assertion  is  matter  of  opinion.89  But 
a  gross  misrepresentation  of  the  capacity  of  a  machine  and  the  success  in  selling 
and  operating  it,  of  which  the  purchaser  was  ignorant,  has  been  held  sufficient  to 
warrant  the  rescission  of  a  contract  induced  thereby.40 

(n)  LIABILITY  FOR,  AND  RECOVERY  OF,  CONSIDERATION.^  In  the  absence 
of  fraud  or  warranty  the  assignee  of  a  patent  right  cannot  refuse  to  make  the 
payments  agreed  upon  merely  because  the  patent  is  found  to  be  invalid,42  or 


200,  71  N.  E.  734;  Kirschmann  t?.  Lediard,  61 
Barb.  573;  Brusie  v.  Peck,  16  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
648  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  135  N.  Y. 
622,  32  N.  E.  76]. 

Texas. —  Clark  t;.  Cyclone  Woven  Wire 
Fence  Co.,  22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  41,  54  S.  W. 
392. 

Vermont. —  Vaughan  v.  Porter,  16  Vt.  266. 

31.  Assignment  in  trust  see  TBUSTS. 

32.  McClurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  How.  (U.  S.) 
202,  11  L.  ed.  102;  Walter  A.  Wood  Mowing, 
etc.,  Mach.  Co.  v.  Deering,  66  Fed.  547 ;  Grier 
r.  Baynes,  46  Fed.  523;  Pennington  v.  Hunt, 
20    Fed.    195;    Washburn,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.    V. 
Griesche,  16  Fed.  669,  5  McCrary  246. 

Assignee  takes  only  what  assignor  owned. 
—  Coleman  v.  Ryan,  33  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  715, 
68  N.  Y.  Suppl.  253;  Abbett  v.  Zusi,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,  5  Ban.  &  A.  38.  See  also  supra, 
XI,  A,  5,  c,  (i). 

33.  Fowler   v.   Mallory,    53    Conn.    420,    3 
Atl.  560;  Dillman  v.  Nadelhoffer,  19  111.  App. 
375   [affirmed  in  119  111.  567,  7  N.  E.  881; 
Wade  v.  Ringo,   122  Mo.  322,  25  S.  W.  901; 
Cansler   v.   Eaton,   55   N.   C.   499;    Hiatt   v. 
Twomey,  21  N.  C.  315. 

34.  Hull  17.  Fields,  76  Va.  594. 

35.  Wade  v.  Ringo,  122  Mo.  322,  25  S.  W. 
901. 

36.  Dillman  v.  Nadlehoffer,  119  111.  567,  7 
N.  E.  88  [affirming  19  111.  App.  3751. 

37.  Reeves  v.  Corning,  51  Fed.  774. 

38.  Dillman   v.   Nadlehoffer,    119    111.   567, 
7  N.  E.  88  [affirming  19  111.  App.  375]. 

39.  Dillman   v.   Nadlehoffer,    119    111.    567, 
.  7   N.    E.    88    [affirming    19    111.    App.    375]; 

[XI,  A,  6,  a] 


Rockafellow    v.    Baker,    41    Pa.    St.    319,    80 
Am.  Dec.  624. 

40.  Pierce  v.  Wilson,  34  Ala.  596. 

41.  See   COMMERCIAL  PAPER,   7   Cyc.  694; 
CONTRACTS,  9  Cyc.  369. 

42.  Connecticut. —  Fowler    v.    Mallory,    53 
Conn.  420,  3  Atl.  560. 

Illinois. —  Dillman  v.  Nadelhoffer,  19  111. 
App.  375  [affirmed  in  119  111.  567]. 

Indiana. —  Detrick  v.  McGlone,  46  Ind.  291. 

Maryland. —  Schwarzenbach  v.  Odorless  Ex- 
cavating Apparatus  Co.,  65  Md.  34,  3  Atl. 
676,  57  Am.  Rep.  301. 

Massachusetts. —  Gilmore  v.  Aiken,  118 
Mass.  94. 

Minnesota. —  Clark  v.  Smith,  21  Minn.  539. 

New  York.—  McGill  v.  Holmes,  108  N.  Y. 
647,  61  N.  E.  1131. 

North  Carolina. —  Cansler  v.  Eaton,  55 
N.  C.  499;  Hiatt  v.  Twomey,  21  N.  C.  315. 

United  States. —  Eclipse  Bicycle  Co.  v.  Far- 
row, 199  U.  S.  581,  26  S.  Ct.  150,  50  L.  ed. 
317;  Wilson  v.  Simpson,  9  How.  109,  13  L.  ed. 
66;  Milligan  v.  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  21 
Fed.  570. 

In  the  absence  of  warranty  invalidity  is  no 
defense.  Saxton  v.  Dodge,  57  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
84 ;  Smith  v.  Neale,  2  C.  B.  N.  S.  67,  3  Jur. 
N.  S.  516,  26  L.  J.  C.  P.  143,  4  Wkly.  Rep. 
563,  89  E.  C.  L.  67;  Hall  v.  Conder,  2  C.  B. 
N.  S.  22,  3  Jur.  N.  S.  366,  26  L.  J.  C.  P.  138, 
89  E.  C.  L.  22  [affirmed  in  2  C.  B.  N.  S.  53, 
3  Jur.  N.  S.  963,  26  L.  J.  C.  P.  288,  5  Wkly. 
Rep.  742,  89  E.  C.  L.  53]  ;  Lawes  v.  Purser,  6 
E.  &  B.  930,  3  Jur.  N.  S.  182,  26  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
25,  5  Wkly.  Rep.  43,  88  E.  C.  L.  930;  Smith 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     953 


because  the  patented  device  infringes  another  patent ; 43  but  he  may  refuse  where 
there  is  a  total  failure  of  consideration  flowing  from  the  assignor,  as  where  the 
patented  device  is  inoperative  or  useless.44  But  in  order  to  sustain  the  defense 
of  want  of  consideration  it  is  not  enough  that  the  practical  utility  of  the  patent 
be  limited,  or  that  the  manufactured  article  cannot  be  manufactured  and  sold  at 
a  profit,  if  it  be  capable  of  use.45  A  breach  of  a  warranty  given  on  the  sale  of  a 
patent  right  is  equivalent  to  a  failure  of  consideration  and  furnishes  a  good 
defense  to  an  action  for  the  price.46 

(in)  RECOVERY  BACK  OF  CONSIDERATION  BY  ASSIGNEE.  Since  no  warranty 
is  implied  in  the  sale  of  a  patent  right  the  purchaser  of  such  a  right  cannot,  in 
the  absence  of  fraud,  and  without  an  express  covenant,  recover  of  his  vendor  the 
price  paid  for  it,  because  it  is  found  to  be  invalid.47  He  may,  however,  recover 
back  the  purchase-money  if  the  patent  right  was  not  that  which  he  agreed  to 
buy,  unless  he  has  accepted  a  deed  describing  the  patent.48  If  a  patentee  elects 
to  rescind  a  contract  of  sale  for  non-payment  of  the  whole  purchase-price  the 
vendee  is  entitled  to  recover  back  the  amount  paid  on  the  contract.49 

e.  As  to  Third  Parties.50  An  assignee  of  a  patent  takes  the  title  subject  to  the 
equities  of  other  parties  who  have  acquired  rights  therein,  of  which  he  had  notice, 
express  or  implied.51  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  in  the  absence  of  express 


v.  Buckingham,  21  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  819,  18 
Wkly.  Rep.  314;  Hayne  v.  Maltby,  3  T.  R. 
438;  Liardet  v.  Hammond  Electric  Light,  etc., 
Co.,  31  Wkly.  Rep.  710;  Vermilyea  v.  Canniff, 
12  Ont.  164;  Owens  v.  Taylor,  29  Grant  Ch. 
(U.  C.)  210. 

43.  Fowler    v.    Mallory,    53    Conn.    420,    3 
Atl.  560;  Rhodes  v.  Ashurst,  176  111.  351,  52 
N.  E.  118;  Standard  Button  Fastening  Co.  v. 
Harney,  155  Mass.  507,  29  N.  E.  1148;  Home 
v.  Hoyle,  27   Fed.   216.     Compare  Herzog  v. 
Heyman,    151   N.  Y.  587,  45  N.  E.    1127,  56 
Am.  St.  Rep.  646. 

Proof  that  a  patent  is  void  for  infringe- 
ment is  not  admissible  in  a  suit  upon  a  note 
given  for  its  conveyance,  unless  that  fact  has 
been  determined  by  a  competent  court.  Elmer 
v.  Pennel,  40  Me.  430. 

44.  Snyder    t?.    Kurtz,    61    Iowa    593,    16 
N.  W.  722;  Scott  v.  Sweet,  2  Greene   (Iowa) 
224;  Groff  v.  Hansel,  33  Md.  161;  McDougall 
v.    Fogg,   2    Bosw.    (N.   Y.)    387;    Herzog   v. 
Heyman,  8  Misc.   (N.  Y.)  27,  28  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
74;  Clough  v.  Patrick,  37  Vt.  421;  Cragin  v. 
Fowler,  34  Vt.  326,  80  Am.  Dec.  680. 

Question  of  utility  is  for  jury. —  Rowe  v. 
Blanchard,  18  Wis.  441,  86  Am.  Dec.  783. 

45.  Indiana. —  Hunter    v.    McLaughlin,    43 
Ind.  38. 

Maine. —  Elmer  v.  Pennel,  40  Me.  430. 

Massachusetts. —  Howe  v.  Richards,  102 
Mass.  64. 

Minnesota. —  Van  Norman  v.  Barbeau,  54 
Minn.  388,  55  N.  W.  1112. 

North  Carolina. —  Fair  v.  Shelton,  128  N.  C. 
105,  38  S.  E.  290. 

Evidence  of  slight  value  inadmissible  see 
Vaughan  v.  Porter,  16  Vt.  266. 

46.  Hawes  v.  Twogood,  12  Iowa  582. 

47.  Schwarzenbach  v.  Odorless  Excavating 
Apparatus  Co.,  65  Md.  34,  3  Atl.  676,  57  Am. 
Rep.     301 ;     Foss    v.    Richardson,     15     Gray 
(Mass.)   303;  Hiatt  v.  Twomey,  21  N.  C.  315. 

48.  Foss  I?.  Richardson,   15  Gray    (Mass.) 
303. 


49.  Bellis  v.  Kenwood,  6  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  78. 

50.  Patent  rights  as  subject  to  creditors' 
suits  see  CEEDITORS'  SUITS,  12  Cyc.  31. 

Patent  rights  as  subject  to  execution  see 
EXECUTIONS,  17  Cyc.  943. 

Who  entitled  to  sue  infringers  see  infra, 
XIII,  C,  7,  a,  b. 

51.  Des   Moines   Ins.    Co.   v.  Mclntire,   99 
Iowa   50,   68  N.   W.   565;   New  York  Phono- 
graph Co.  v.  Edison,  136  Fed.  600  [affirmed  in 
144    Fed.    404,    75    C.   C.   A.   382]  ;    Bradford 
Belting  Co.  v.  Kisinger-Ison  Co.,  113  Fed.  811, 
51  C.  C.  A.  483;  Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co. 
v.  Chicago  Brake,  etc.,  Co.,  85  Fed.  786;  Car- 
roll v.  Goldschmidt,  83  Fed.  508,  27  C.  C.  A. 
566;    Sheldon    Axle    Co.    v.    Standard    Axle 
Works,  37  Fed.  789,  3  L.  R.  A.  656 ;  Kearney 
v.  Lehigh  Valley  R.  Co.,  27  Fed.  699;  Hap- 
good  v.  Rosenstock,  23  Fed.   86,   23   Blatchf. 
95;  Gottfried  v.  Miller,  10  Fed.  471;   Cham- 
bers v.  Smith,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,582,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  12,  7  Phila.   (Pa.)   575. 

An  assignee  of  a  patent  is  chargeable  with 
notice  of  every  fact  in  relation  to  an  out- 
standing interest  the  possible  existence  of 
which  is  indicated  by  the  recitals  of  the  as- 
signment. Jonathan  Mills  Mfg.  Co.  v.  White- 
hurst,  72  Fed.  496,  19  C.  C.  A.  130;  Water- 
man v.  Shipman,  55  Fed.  982,  5  C.  C.  A.  371; 
Prime  v.  Brandon  Mfg.  Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,421,  4  Ban.  &  A.  379,  16  Blatchf.  453. 

Notice  of  oral  contract. — A  purchaser  of  a 
patent  with  notice  of  a  prior  oral  contract  to 
convey  the  patent  to  another  will  be  treated 
as  a  trustee  for  such  prior  contracting  party, 
and  decreed  to  convey  to  him.  Whitney  v. 
Burr,  115  111.  289,  3  N.  E.  434. 

Not  subject  to  equities  of  which  he  had 
no  notice. —  Gates  Iron  Works  v.  Fraser,  153 
U.  S.  332,  14  S.  Ct.  883,  38  L.  ed.  734  [af- 
firming 42  Fed.  49]  ;  Davis,  etc.,  Temperature 
Controlling  Co.  v.  Tagliabue,  150  Fed.  372 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  159  Fed.  712] ; 
Faulkner  v.  Empire  State  Nail  Co.,  67  Fed. 
913,  15  C.  C.  A.  69  [affirming  55  Fed.  819]. 

[XI,  A,  6,  e] 


954     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


contract  he  assumes  no  affirmative  obligation  to  make  good  the  previous  contracts 
of  his  assignor.52 

7.  TRANSFER  BY  SUCCESSION  OR  INHERITANCE.53  Upon  the  death  of  the  patentee 
the  patent  vests  in  the  administrator  or  executor  and  not  in  the  heirs.54 

B.  Licenses  and  Contracts55  —  !.  LICENSES  — a.  In  General.  A  license  is 
any  right  to  make,  use,  or  sell  the  patented  invention  which  is  less  than  an  undi- 
vided part  interest  in  the  patent  itself.56  A  license  operates  only  as  a  waiver  of 
the  monopoly  as  to  the  licensee,  and  estops  the  licensor  from  exercising  his  pro- 
hibitory powers  in  derogation  of  the  privileges  conferred  by  him  upon  the 
licensee.57  It  gives  no  right  to  bring  suit  upon  the  patent  and  has  been  defined 
as  the  right  not  to  be  sued.58 

b.  Requisites  and  Validity  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  A  license  may  be  express  or 
implied.  An  express  license  may  be  oral  or  in  writing.59  If  in  writing  no  par- 
ticular form  of  words  is  necessary.  Anything  which  confers  upon  another  the 
right  to  do  an  act  which  otherwise  would  be  illegal  is  sufficient.60  Its  validity  is 
determined  by  the  same  principles  that  apply  to  other  contracts.61  A  license  to 


52.  Courier  v.  Crescent  Sewing  Mach.  Co., 
60  N.  J.  Eq.  413,  45  Atl.  609;  Bradford  Belt- 
ing Co.  v.  Kisinger-Ison  Co.,  113  Fed.  811,  51 
C.  C.  A.  483 ;  Mueller  v.  Mueller,  95  Fed.  155, 
37  C.  C.  A.  392. 

53.  Power  of  administrator  to  assign  pat- 
ent see  supra,  XI,  A,  1,  b,   (i). 

54.  Bradley  v.   Dull,    19    Fed.    913;    Shaw 
Relief  Valve  Co.  v.  New  Bedford,  19  Fed.  753 ; 
Hodge  v.  North  Missouri  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,561,  1  Dill.  104,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  161. 
See  also  supra,  IV,  F;  I,  C,  1. 

Surviving  partner  takes  patent.  Smith  r. 
London,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  E.  &  B.  69,  17  Jur. 
1071,  75  E.  C.  L.  69. 

55.  Regulation  of  dealings  in  patent  rights 
and  patented  articles  see  infra,  XII. 

Specific  performance  of  agreements  for  li- 
censes see  SPECIFIC  PERFORMANCE. 

56.  Eclipse   Wind   Engine   Co.   v.  Zimmer- 
man Mfg.   Co.,    16  Ind.  App.   496,  44  N.   E. 
1115;  Waterman  v.  MacKenzie,  138  U.  S.  252, 
11  S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923;  Oliver  v.  Rum- 
ford  Chemical  Works,  109  U.  S.  75,  3  S.  Ct. 
61,  27  L.  ed.  864;  Gayler  v.  Wilder,  10  How. 
(U.  S.)   477,  13  L.  ed.  504;  Rice  v.  Boss,  46 
Fed.  195;  Theberath  v.  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.,  3 
Fed.    143;    Potter   V.   Holland,    19    Fed.    Cas. 
No.  11,329,  4  Blatchf.  206,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
327;    Sanford   v.   Messer,    21    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
12,314,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  411,  Holmes  149,  2 
Off.  Gaz.  470.     And  see  35  Viet.  c.  26,  §  22. 

The  separate  rights  of  making,  using,  or 
selling  may  be  separately  conveyed. —  Water- 
man v.  MacKenzie,  138  U.  S.  252,  11  S.  Ct. 
334,  34  L.  ed.  923 ;  Oliver  v.  Rumford  Chemi- 
cal Works,  109  U.  S.  75,  3  S.  Ct.  61,  27  L.  ed. 
862;  Hayward  v.  Andrews,  106  U.  S.  672,  1 
S.  Ct.  544,  27  L.  ed.  271 ;  Mitchell  v.  Hawley, 
16  Wall.  (U.  S.)  544,  21  L.  ed.  322;  Gayler 
V.  Wilder,  10  How.  (U.  S.)  477,  13  L.  ed. 
504. 

Particular  transfers  held  to  constitute  li- 
censes see  Ft.  Wayne,  etc.,  R.  Co.  i>.  Haber- 
korn,  15  Ind.  App.  479,  44  N.  E.  322 ;  Stand- 
ard Button  Fastening  Co.  v.  Ellis,  159  Mass. 
448,  54  N.  E.  682;  Hurd  v.  Gere,  27  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  625,  50  N.  Y.  Suppl.  235 ;  Topliff  v. 
Topliff,  122  U.  S.  121,  7  S.  Ct.  1057,  30  L.  ed. 

[XI,  A,  6,  e] 


1110;  Gayler  v.  Wilder,  10  How.  (U.  S.)  477, 
13  L.  ed.  504;  Atwood  Lock  Co.  v.  Yale,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  115  Fed.  332;  Rice  v.  Boss,  46  Fed. 
195;  Hatfield  v.  Smith,  44  Fed.  355;  Ingalls 
V.  Tice,  14  Fed.  297;  Gamewell  Fire- Alarm 
Tel.  Co.  v.  Brooklyn,  14  Fed.  255;  Nellis  v. 
Pennock  Mfg.  Co.,  13  Fed.  451;  Armstrong  v. 
Hanlenbeck,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  544,  3  N.  Y. 
Leg.  Obs.  43;  Brooks  v.  Byam,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,948,  2  Robb.  Pat.  Cas.  161,  2  Story 
525 ;  Farrington  V.  Gregory,  8  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  4,688,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  221;  Hussey  v. 
Whitely,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,950,  1  Bond  407, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  120;  Sanford  v.  Messer,  21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,314,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  411, 
Holmes  149,  2  Off.  Gaz.  470;  Troy  Iron,  etc., 
Factory  v.  Corning,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,195, 

1  Blatchf.  467,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  290. 

57.  Heaton-Peninsular  Button-Fastener  Co. 
v.  Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25  C.  C. 
A.  267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728,   78  Off.  Gaz.   171; 
Bennett   v.   Iron   Clad  Mfg.   Co.,    110    N.   Y. 
App.  Div.  443,  96  N.  Y.  Suppl.  968. 

58.  Hawks  v.  Swett,  4  Hun    (N.  Y.)    146; 
Heaton-Peninsular     Button-Fastener     Co.     v. 
Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25  C.  C.  A. 
267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728,  78  Off.  Gaz.  171  [revers- 
ing 65   Fed.   619]  ;   Heap  v.  Hartley,  42  Ch. 
D.  461,  58  L.  J.  Ch.  790,  61  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
538,  38  Wkly.  Rep.  136 ;  Renard  v.  Levinstein, 

2  Hem.  &  M.  628,  11  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  766,  5 
New  Rep.  301,  13  Wkly.   Rep.  382,   71   Eng. 
Reprint  607. 

59.  Buss  v.  Putney,   38  N.   H.   44;    Gates 
Iron  Works  v.  Fraser,  153  U.  S.  332,  14  S.  Ct. 
883,  38  L.  ed.  734;  Cook  v.  Sterling  Electric 
Co.,  150  Fed.  766,  80  C.  C.  A.  502  [affirming 
118  Fed.  45]  ;  Jones  V.  Berger,  58  Fed.  1006; 
Baldwin   v.    Sibley,   2   Fed.    Cas.   No.   805,    1 
Cliff.   150;   Protheroe  v.  May,  9  L.  J.  Exch. 
121,  5  M.  &  W.  675;  Roden  v.  London  Small 
Arms  Co.,  46  L.  J.  Q.  B.  213,  35  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  305,  25  Wkly.  Rep.  269. 

60.  A  covenant  not  to  sue  for  future  in- 
fringements is  in  substance  and  effect  a  li- 
cense.  Seibert  Cylinder  Oil-Cup  Co.  v.  Detroit 
Lubricator    Co.,'   34    Fed.    216;     Colgate    v. 
Western  Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  28  Fed.  146. 

61.  Heaton-Peninsular  Button-Fastener  Co. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     955 


use  an  invention  may  be  given  before  it  is  patented,62  and  if  without  restrictions, 
and  if  acted  on  by  applying  the  invention  to  machines  or  mechanisms  constructed 
before  the  granting  of  the  patent,  will  protect  the  licensee  in  its  use  afterward.68 
It  must  conform  to  the  requirements  of  state  laws,64  and  not  be  in  restraint  of 
trade.65 

(n)  IMPLIED  LICENSE™  —  (A)  In  General.  The  conduct  of  the  owner  of  the 
patent  may  be  such  as  to  create  an  implied  license  to  make,  use,  or  sell  the  inven- 
tion.67 Mere  acquiescence,  if  founded  on  a  valuable  consideration,  is  sufficient  of 
itself  to  amount  to  a  license.68 

(B)  from  Sale  of  Patented  Article.  The  sale  of  a  patented  article  by  one 
entitled  to  sell  it  carries  with  it  the  right  to  use  the  particular  article  anywhere 
desired,  and  to  sell  it  to  others  unless  there  was  an  agreement  to  the  contrary 
when  the  sale  was  made.  By  virtue  of  the  contract  of  sale  and  the  unconditional 
delivery  the  article  sold  is  released  from  the  monopoly.69  The  sale  of  a  patented 
article  without  condition  or  restriction  carries  with  it  dominion  over  the  article  so 
sold,  and  the  purchaser  may  use  it  in  any  manner  and  for  any  purpose,70  so  long 
as  such  use  does  not  violate  the  vendor's  exclusive  property  in  another  invention.71 


v.  Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25 
C.  C.  A.  267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728,  78  Off.  Gaz. 
171. 

62.  Burton   v.   Burton   Stock-Car   Co.,   171 
Mass.    437,    50    N.    E.    1029;    Bezer    v.    Hall 
Signal  Co.,  22  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  489,  48  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  203 ;   Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  California 
Electric  Light  Co.,  52   Fed.   945,  3   C.  C.  A. 
368. 

63.  Burton   v.   Burton   Stock-Car   Co.,    17  L 
Mass.  437,  50  N.  E.  1029. 

64.  Sandage  v.  Studabaker  Bros.  Mfg.  Co., 
142  Ind.   148,  41  N.  E.  380,  51  Am.  St.  Rep. 
165,  34  L.  R.  A.  363;   Mason  v.  McLeod,  57 
Kan.  105,  45  Pac.  76,  57  Am.  St.  Rep.  327, 
41  L.  R.  A.  548.     See  also  infra,  XII,  B. 

65.  Exclusive  license  not  illegal. — An  agree- 
ment by  a  patentee  to  allow  an  association 
and  its  members  the  exclusive  use  and   sale 
of  inventions  patented  by  him  is  not  illegal 
as    being    in    restraint    of    trade.     Good    v. 
Daland,    121  N.  Y.    1,  24  N.   E.    15.     But  a 
public  corporation  cannot  refuse  to  give  equal 
service  to  all  merely  because  operating  under 
a  patent.    Commercial  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  New 
England   Tel.,  etc.,   Co.,   61   Vt.   241,   17  Atl. 
1071,  15  Am.  St.  Rep.  893,  5  L.  R.  A.  161. 

,    66.  Implied  from  relation  of  employer  and 
employee  see  supra,  IV,  C. 

67.  Deane  v.  Hodge,  35  Minn.  146,  27  N.  W. 
917,  59  Am.  Rep.  321;  O'Rourke  Engineering 
Constr.  Co.  v.  McMullen,  150  Fed.  338; 
Mueller  v.  Mueller,  95  Fed.  155,  37  C.  C.  A. 
392 ;  Anderson  v.  Eiler,  50  Fed.  775,  1  C.  C.  A. 
659;  Dodge  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Puster,  42  Fed.  54; 
Blanchard  v.  Sprague,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,516, 
1  Cliff.  288;  Gear  v.  Grosvenor,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,291,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  314,  Holmes  215, 
3  Off.  Gaz.  380;  Magoun  v.  New  England 
Glass  Co.,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,960,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
114;  McKeever  v.  U.  S.,  14  Ct.  Cl.  396;'  In- 
candescent Gas  Light  Co.  v.  New  Incandescent 
Gas  Lighting  Co.,  76  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  47; 
Kenny's  Patent  Button-holeing  Co.  v.  Somer- 
vell,  38  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  878,  26  Wkly.  Rep. 
786. 

Evidence  held  insufficient  to  show  implied 
license  see  Lawther  v.  Hamilton,  124  U.  S.  1, 


8  S.  Ct.  342,  31  L.  ed.  325;  Keller  v.  Stolzen- 
bach,  20  Fed.  47. 

68.  Seibert  Cylinder  Oil-Cup  Co.  v.  Detroit 
Lubricator    Co.,    34   Fed.    216;    Blanchard   v. 
Sprague,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,516,  1  Cliff.  288. 

69.  Pratt    v.    Marean,    25    111.    App.    516; 
Howe  v.  Wooldredge,    12  Allen    (Mass.)    18; 
Morgan   Envelope   Co.    v.   Albany  Perforated 
Wrapping  Paper  Co.,  152  U.  S.  425,  14  S.  Ct. 
627,  38  L.  ed.   500;   Hobbie  v.  Jennison,   149 
U.    S.    355,    13    S.    Ct.    879,   37    L.    ed.    766; 
Waterman  v.  MacKenzie,   138  U.   S.  252,   11 
S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923 ;'  Newton  v.  McGuire, 
97  Fed.  614;  Hanifen  v.  Lupton,  95  Fed.  465; 
Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Goelet,  65  Fed. 
612;  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Blooming- 
dale,  65  Fed.  212;  Edison  Electric  Light  Co'. 
v.  Citizens'  Electric  Light,  etc.,  Co.,  64  Fed. 
491;    Hobbie    v.    Smith,    27    Fed.    656;    Ala- 
bastine  Co.  v.  Richardson,  26  Fed.  620 ;  Roose- 
velt v.   Western    Electric   Co.,    20    Fed.    724; 
Porter  Needle  Co.  v.  National  Needle  Co.,  17 
Fed.  536;  Detweiler  v.  Voege,  8  Fed.  600,  19 
Blatchf.   482;    Adams   v.   Burks,   1   Fed.   Cas. 
No.   50,   4   Fish.    Pat.   Cas.   392,   Holmes   40, 

1  Off.  Gaz.  282  [affirmed  in  17  Wall.  453,  21 
L.  ed.  700] ;  American  Cotton-Tie  Co.  v.  Sim- 
mons, 1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  293,  3  Ban.  &  A.  320, 
13  Off.  Gaz.  967    [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in   106  U.  S.  89,  1  S.  Ct.  52,  27  L.  ed.  79] ; 
Black  v.  Hubbard,   3  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,460,  3 
Ban.  &  A.   39,   12   Off.   Gaz.  842;    Brooks  v. 
Stolley,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,963,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
137,   4  McLean  275;   Farrington  v.   Gregory, 
8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,688,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  221; 
Goodyear  v.  Beverly  Rubber  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,557,  1  Cliff.  348;  McKay  v.  Wooster,  16 
Fed.  Cas.   No.   8,847,  6  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.   375, 

2  Sawy.  373,  3  Off.  Gaz.  441. 

Sale  by  patentee's  agent  abroad  see  Betts 
v.  Willniott,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  239,  25  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  188,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  369. 

70.  George  Frost  Co.  v.  Kora  Co.,  136  Fed. 
487    [affirmed  in   140   Fed.   987,  71    C.   C.  A. 
19]  ;  Goodyear  v.  Beverly  Rubber  Co.,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,557,  1  Cliff.  348. 

71.  Roosevelt  v.  Western  Electric  Co.,  20 
Fed.  724. 

[XI,  B,  1,  b,  (n),  (B)] 


956     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


A  sale,  in  order  to  have  this  effect,  however,  must  be  by  one  entitled  to  sell.72 
The  purchaser  has  no  right  to  make  another  machine  or  structure  like  it,  nor  to 
buy  one  from  an  inf ringer.73 

e.  Recording.74  The  law  does  not  require  that  a  license  be  recorded  in  the 
patent  office  even  as  against  subsequent  purchasers.75 

d.  Construction  and  Operation  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  Licenses  are  to  be  con- 
strued like  other  contracts,76  according  to  the  intention  of  the  parties.77  If  the 
license  is  in  writing,  all  previous  parol  agreements  are  merged  therein,78  and 
oral  evidence  is  not  admissible  to  explain  its  provisions,79  unless  it  is  capable  of 
two  interpretations  and  a  doubt  exists  as  to  its  true  meaning.80  Several  licenses 
constituting  one  transaction  may  be  construed  together.81 

(n)  EIGHTS  AND  INTERESTS  CONVEYED — (A)  In  General.  The  rights  con- 
ferred by  a  license  must  be  taken  subject  to  the  conditions  therein  made  by  the 
licensor.82  The  licensee  has,  however,  the  right  to  do  those  things  which  are 
necessary  to  the  enjoyment  of  his  license,  such  as  to  make  a  machine  which  he 
has  been  licensed  to  use.83  Conversely  a  conveyance  of  the  right  to  make  and 


72.  Brooks  v.  Stolley,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,963, 
Fish.  Pat.   Rep.    137,  4  McLean  275;   Union 
Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Nixon,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,391,  2  Ban.  &  A.  244,  1  Flipp.  491,  9 
Off.  Gaz.  691.  • 

73.  Mitchell  v.  Hawley,   16  Wall.    (U.  S.) 
544,  21   L.  ed,   322;    Brown  v.   Puget  Sound 
Reduction  Co.,  1 10  Fed.  383 ;  Boston  v.  Allen, 
91  Fed.  248,  33  C.  C.  A.  485 ;  Davis  v.  Chesa- 
peake, etc.,  Co.,  77  Fed.  895;  Vermont  Farm 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Gibson,  56  Fed.  143,  5  C.  C.  A. 
451;   Union  Metallic  Cartridge  Co.  v.  U.  S. 
Cartridge    Co.,    24    Fed.    Cas.    No.    14,369,    2 
Ban.  &  A.  593,  11  Off.  Gaz.  1113. 

A  purchaser's  right  to  use  the  patent  is  a 
mere  incident  to  his  ownership  of  the  particu- 
lar machine  or  structure  sold  to  him  by  the 
patentee,  and  when  it  is  worn  out  or  de- 
stroyed the  right  to  use  the  invention  ceases. 
Brown  v.  Puget  Sound  Reduction  Co.,  110 
Fed.  383. 

74.  Of  assignment  see  supra,  XI,  A,  4. 

75.  Peoria  Malting  Co.  v.  Davenport  Grain, 
etc.,  Co.,  68  111.  App.  104;   Stevens  v.  Head, 
9  Vt.  174,  31  Am.  Dec.  617;  Jones  v.  Berger, 
58  Fed.   1006;    Brooks  v.  Byam,  4  Fed.   Cas. 
No.    1,948,   2    Robb   Pat.    Cas.    161,    2    Story 
525;    Chambers   v.    Smith,    5    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
2,582,  5   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   12,   7  Phila.    (Pa.) 
575;    Hamilton    v.   Kingsbury,    11    Fed.    Cas. 
No.  5,985,  4  Ban.  &  A.  615,  17  Blatchf.  264, 
17  Off.  Gaz.  147. 

English  practice. —  Record  is  unnecessary 
unless  royalty  fixed.  In  re  Fletcher,  62  L.  J. 
Ch.  938,  69  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  129,  3  Reports 
626. 

76.  Heaton-Peninsular  Button- Fastener  Co. 
v.    Eureka    Specialty    Co.,    77    Fed.    288,    25 
C.  C.  A.  267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728,  78  Off.  Gaz. 

77.  Laver  v.  Dennett,  109  U.  S.  90,  3  S.  Ct. 
73,  27  L.  ed.  867;  Wetherill  v.  Passaic  Zinc 
Co.,   29   Fed.    Cas.   No.    17,465,   6   Fish.   Pat. 
Cas.  50,  2  Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  385. 

Particular  licenses  construed. —  Hegelein  v. 
Anthony,  33  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  616,  68  N.  Y. 
Strppl.  2;  Leonard  v.  Crocker  Wheeler  Co., 
125  Fed.  375  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
125  Fed.  342,  60  C.  C.  A.  320];  Western 

[XI,  B,  1,  b,  (II),  (B)] 


Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  105 
Fed.  684. 

78.  Evory  v.  Candee,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,583, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  545,  17  Blatchf.  200. 

79.  McAleer   v.  U.   S.,    150   U.   S.  424,    14 
S.  Ct.    160,  37  L.  ed.   1130;   Troy  Iron,  etc., 
Factory  v.  Corning,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,195, 

1  Blatchf.  467,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  290. 

80.  Western   Union   Tel.   Co.   v.   American 
Bell  Tel.  Co.,  105  Fed.  684  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  125  Fed.  342,  60  C.  C.  A.  220]. 

81.  Hammond  v.  Mason,  etc.,  Organ  Co.,  92 
U.  S.  724,  23  L.  ed.  767. 

82.  Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9 
Wall.    (U.  S.)    788,   19  L.  ed.  566;   Pelzer  v. 
Binghamton,  95   Fed.   823,  37   C.  C.  A.  288; 
Hobbie    v.    Smith,   27    Fed.    656;    Bloomer   v. 
Gilpin,  3   Fed.   Cas.  No.   1,558,  4   Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  50;    Star   Salt  Caster  Co.  v.  Grossman, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,321,  3  Ban.  &  A.  281,  4 
Cliff.  568;   Wetherill  v.  Passaic  Zinc  Co.,  29 
Fed.   Cas.  No.   17,465,  6  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  50, 

2  Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.   (Pa.)  385.     See  also 
infra,  XI,  B,  1,  d,   (n),   (B). 

English  and  Canadian  practice. —  Licensee 
abroad  cannot  use  or  sell  in  England  Societe 
Anonyme  des  Manufactures  de  Glaces  v. 
Telghman's  Patent  Sand  Blast  Co.,  25  Ch.  D. 
1,  53  L.  J.  Ch.  1,  49  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  451,^ 
32  Wkly.  Rep.  71.  Licensee  cannot  prevent 
grant  of  license  to  others.  Fire  Extinguisher 
Co.  v.  Northwestern  Fire  Extinguisher  Co., 
20  Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  625. 

83.  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Peninsu- 
lar   Light,    etc.,    Co.,    95    Fed.    669    [affirmed 
in  101  Fed.  831,  43  C.  C.  A.  479]  ;  Illingworth 
v.  Spaulding,  43  Fed.  827 ;  Hamilton  v.  Kings- 
bury,    11    Fed.   Cas.   No.   5,984,  3   Ban.   &  A. 
346,  15  Blatchf.  64,  14  Off.  Gaz.  448;  Steam 
Stonecutter  Co.  ».  Shortsleeves,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,334>  4  Ban.  &  A.  364,  16  Blatchf.  381; 
Woodworth  v.  Curtis,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,013, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  603,  2  Woodb.  &  M.  524; 
MacLaughlin  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Ont. 
L.  Rep.  190. 

English  and  Canadian  practice. —  License  to 
manufacture  gives  right  to  use  and  sell. 
Thomas  v.  Hunt,  17  C.  B.  N.  S.  183,  112 
E.  C.  L.  183.  Need  not  use  in  patented  form. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     957 


sell  a  patented  article  includes  the  right  to  use  it.84  So  one  licensed  to  make  and 
use  may. add  improvements.85  But  the  right  to  use  a  composition  does  not  carry 
the  right  to  use  the  process.86 

(B)  Place  For  Exercise  of  License —  (1)  EXPRESS  LICENSE.  A  license  to  use 
a  patented  device  in  a  particular  territory,87  or  at  a  particular  establishment,88  or 
on  a  particular  railroad,89  is  binding  upon  the  licensee  and  its  use  elsewhere  is 
unlawful.  But  a  license  to  use  and  sell  a  machine  within  a  specified  territory 
authorizes  the  licensee  to  sell  the  product  of  the  machine  out  of  the  said  ter- 
ritory.90 And  a  license  to  use  a  patented  device  in  a  particular  shop  does  not 
prevent  its  manufacture  elsewhere.91 

(2)  IMPLIED  LICENSE.  It  is  well  settled  that  the  sale  of  a  patented  article  by 
one  authorized  to  sell  it  carries  the  right  to  use  it  anywhere,92  even  in  the  terri- 
tory of  another  assignee  or  licensee.93  The  right  to  sell,  as  distinguished  from 
the  right  to  use,  in  the  territory  of  another,  was  formerly  denied ; 94  but  the 
recent  decisions  have  overruled  this  doctrine,  holding  that  the  sale  of  patented 
articles  by  the  patentee  or  a  territorial  assignee  confers  upon  the  purchasers  of 
such  articles  the  right  to  carry  the  same  into  the  territory  of  another  assignee, 
and  there  sell  them,  in  the  usual  course  of  trade,  without  the  consent  or  license  of 
the  latter  assignee.95 

(c)  Duration  of  License 96  —  (1)  IN  GENERAL.  A  license  not  expressly  lim- 
ited in  duration  continues  u'ntil  the  patent  expires  or  the  license  is  forfeited 
through  some  act  of  the  licensee,  if  not  terminated  by  mutual  consent.97  How- 


MacLaughlin  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ont. 
L.  Rep.  706. 

84.  Turnbull  v.  Weir  Plow  Co.,  14  Fed.  108, 
9  Biss.  334. 

85.  Mitchell  v.  Hawley,  16  Wall.    (U.  S.) 
544,    21    L.    ed.    322;    MacLaughlin    v.    Lake 
Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ont.  L.  Rep.  706. 

86.  United  Nickel  Co.  v.  California  Electri- 
cal Works,  25  Fed.  475. 

87.  Burke    v.    Partridge,    58    N.    H.    349; 
Chambers  v.  Smith,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,582,  5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  12,  7  Phila.  (Pa.)  575;  Wicke 
v.   Kleinknecht,    29    Fed.    Cas.  No.    17,608,    1 
Ban.  &  A.  608,  7  Off.  Gaz.  1098 ;  Woodworth 
v.  Cook,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,011,  2  Blatchf. 
151,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  423. 

88.  Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9 
Wall.   (U.  S.)   788,  19  L.  ed.  566. 

A  license  to  use  an  invention  to  the  ca- 
pacity of  a  factory  confers  the  right  to  use 
the  invention  in  a  subsequent  addition  to  the 
factory,  where  the  total  use  does  not  exceed 
the  original  capacity.  England  v.  Thompson, 
8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,487,  3  Cliff.  271. 

A  lease  of  premises  and  machinery  by 
which  a  patented  process  is  carried  on  is  not 
a  general  license,  but  gives  the  licensee  a 
right  to  use  such  process  on  the  leased  prem- 
ises only.  Wetherill  v.  Passaic  Zinc  Co.,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,465,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  50, 
2  Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  385. 

89.  A  license  to  a  railroad  company  extends 
no  further  than  the  road  in  use  or  which  it 
was  authorized  to  construct  at  the  date  of  the 
license.   Emigh  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,448,  1  Biss.  400,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
387,   holding   that   it  cannot  use   the   patent 
on  lines  afterward  built  or  leased.     A  license 
to  use  a  patented  brake  on  any  and  all  cars 
belonging  to  the  licensed  company  covers  the 
use   of  brakes   on   trucks   and  running   gear 
belonging    to     the     company,,     although    the 


superstructure  belongs  to  another.  Hodge  v. 
Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,559, 
6  Blatchf.  85,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  410.  But  a 
license  to  use  a  patented  invention  upon  the 
locomotives  used  by  a  railroad  company  on 
its  road  or  on  any  road  or  roadg  low  owned 
or  that  may  hereafter  be  owned  or  operated 
by  said  company  embraces  not  only  locomo- 
tives in  use  at  the  date  of  the  license  upon 
roads  then  owned  and  operated  by  the  com- 
pany, but  also  such  other  locomotives  as  it 
might  thereafter  use  and  other  roads  which 
it  might  thereafter  operate.  Matthew  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  8  Fed.  45. 

90.  Simpson   v.   Wilson,    4   How.    (U.    S.) 
709,  11   L.  ed.   1169. 

91.  Wood  v.  Wells,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,967, 
6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  382. 

92.  Robbie  v.  Jennison,  149  U.  S.  355,  13 
S.  Ct.  879,  37  L.  ed.  766;  Adams  v.  Burks,  17 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  453,  21  L.  ed.  700;  Edison  Elec- 
tric Light  Co.  v.  Goelet,  65  Fed.  613. 

93.  Hobbie  v.  Jennison,  149  U.  S.  355,  13 
S.  Ct.  879,  37  L.  ed.  766;  Adams  v.  Burks,  17 
Wall.    (U.  S.)    453,  21  L.  ed.  700. 

94.  California  Electrical  Works  v.   Finck, 
47   Fed.  583;    Sheldon  Axle  Co.  v.   Standard 
Axle   Works, .  37   Fed.   789,   3   L.  R.   A.   656 ; 
Hatch  v.  Adams,  22  Fed.  434. 

95.  Keeler    v.    Standard    Folding-Bed    Co., 
157  U.  S.  659,  15  S.  Ct.  738,  39  L.  ed.  848  [re- 
versing 37  Fed.  693,  41  Fed.  51]  ;  Jackson  v. 
Vaughan,  73   Fed.   837. 

96.  Revocation  or  other  termination  see  in- 
fra, XI,  B,  1,  g. 

97.  St.  Paul  Plow-Works  v.  Starling,   140 
U.    S.    184,    11    S.    Ct.    803,    35    L.    ed.    404; 
American  St.   Car  Advertising  Co.  v.  Jones, 
122  Fed.  803    [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
142  Fed.  974,  74  C.  C.  A.  236]  ;  Edison  Elec- 
tric Light  Co.  v.  Peninsular  Light,  etc.,  Co., 
95   Fed.   669 ;   McKay  v.  Mace,   23   Fed.   76 ; 

[XI.  B,  1,  d,  (II),  (C),  (1)] 


958     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


ever  an  express  stipulation  in  the  contract  as  to  the  duration  of  the  license  will 
of  course  control.98 

(2)  IN  EXTENDED  TERM.  The  presumption  of  law  in  regard  to  every  license 
under  a  patent  is  that  the  parties  deal  in  regard  only  to  the  term  existing  when 
the  license  is  given,  unless  an  express  provision  is  inserted  looking  to  a  further 
interest ;  and  unless  there  be  such  a  stipulation,  showing  that  the  parties  con- 
templated an  extension,  the  provisions  of  the  license  will  be  construed  as  relating 
to  the  then  existing  term  only."  There  is,  however,  a  distinction  between  the 
grant  of  the  right  to  make  and  vend  the  patented  article,  and  the  grant  of  the 
right  to  use  it.  Purchasers  of  the  exclusive  privilege  of  making  or  vending 
the  patented  article  hold  the  whole  or  a  portion  of  the  franchise  which  the  patent 
secures,  depending  upon  the  nature  of  the  conveyance,  and  the  interest  which 
the  purchaser  acquires  at  the  time  limited  for  its  continuance  by  the  law  which 
created  the  franchise,  unless  it  is  expressly  stipulated  to  the  contrary.1  But  the 
purchaser  of  the  implement  or  machine  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  in  the  ordinary 
pursuits  of  life  stands  on  different  grounds.  Where  such  a  sale  is  absolute,  and 
without  any  conditions,  the  rule  is  well  settled  that  the  purchaser  may  continue 
to  use  the  implement  or  machine  until  it  is  worn  out  in  spite  of  any  and  every 
extension  subsequently  obtained  by  the  patentee  or  his  assigns.2  But  a  licensee 
who,  having  machines  in  use  at  the  end  of  an  original  term  of  a  patent,  takes  a 
license  for  another  year  under  the  extended  term,  waives  any  rights  which  he  had 
to  use  such  machines  when  the  first  term  ended.3  If  before  the  extension  the 
right  to  use  was  limited  to  a  particular  district  or  to  a  specified  number  of 
machines,  it  continues  during  the  extension  subject  to  the  same  limitations.4 

(in)  COVENANTS  AND  CONDITIONS.  The  rights  of  the  licensee  may  be  limited 
by  special  covenants  and  conditions,5  and  a  violation  of  those  conditions  make 


Hodge  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  6,559,  6  Blatchf.  85,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Gas. 
410. 

98.  Nichols   v.    Murphy,    136    111.    380,    26 
N.    E.    509;    Mitchell    v.    Hawley,    16    Wall. 
(U.    S.)    544,   21    L.    ed.    322;    Sherborne   v. 
Wilcox,     etc.,    Sewing-mach.    Co.,     105    Fed. 
970. 

99.  New  York  Phonograph  Co.  v.  Edison, 
136  Fed.  600   [affirmed  in   144  Fed.  404,  75 
G.  G.  A.  382] ;  Hodge  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co., 
12  Fed.  Gas.  No.  6,559,  6  Blatchf.  85,  3  Fish. 
Pat.    Gas.    410;    Hodge   v.   Hudson   River   R. 
Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,560,  6  Blatchf.  165. 

Construction  of  particular  stipulations. — A 
stipulation  in  a  license  that  it  shall  con- 
tinue "  during  the  term  for  which  said  let- 
ters patent  are  or  may  be  granted  "  ( Hodge 
f.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,559,  6  Blatchf.  85,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  410), 
or  "  for  the  whole  term  of  the  patent  which 
may  be  granted  "  ( Wetherill  v.  Passaic  Zinc 
Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17465,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
50,  2  Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  385), 
does  not  authorize  the  use  of  the  invention 
during  the  extended  term. 

1.  Union  Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  V.  Nixon, 
105  U.  S.  766,  26  L.  ed.  959;  Mitchell  v. 
Hawley,  16  Wall.  (U.  S.)  544,  21  L.  ed.  322; 
Bloomer  v.  Millinger,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  340,  17 
L.  ed.  581;  Bloomer  v.  Stolley,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,559,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  376,  5  McLean 
158;  Wetherill  v.  Passaic  Zinc  Co.,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,465,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  50,  2  Off. 
Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  385. 

The  right  to  use  a  patented  process  during 

[XI.  B.  1.  d.  (n),  (c),  (1)] 


the  original  term  of  the  patent  does  not  au- 
thorize the  use  of  it  after  the  patent  is  ex- 
tended. Wetherill  v.  Passaic  Zinc  Co.,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,465,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  50,  2 
Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.  (Pa.)  385. 

2.  Union   Paper-Bag  Mach.    Co.   v.   Nixon, 
105  U.  S.  766,  26  L.  ed.  959;  Mitchell  v.  Haw- 
ley,   16   Wall.    (U.   S.)    544,   21   L.   ed.   322; 
Bloomer  v.  Millinger,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  340,  17 
L.  ed.  581;  Chaff ee  v.  Boston  Belting  Co.,  22 
How.    (U.  S.)    217,   16   L.  ed.   240;    Bloomer 
v.  McQuewan,  14  How.   (U.  S.)   539,  14  L.  ed. 
532;   Blanchard  v.  Whitney,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,519,  3  Blatchf.  307;  Farrington  v.  Gregory, 
8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,688,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  221; 
Hodge  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   6,559,  6   Blatchf.   85,   3   Fish.  Pat.   Cas. 
410;  May  v.  Chaffee,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,332,  2 
Dill.  385,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  160;  Spaulding  v. 
Page,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,219,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  641,   1  Sawy.  702;  Wetherill  v.  Passaic 
Zinc  Co.,   29    Fed.   Cas.   No.    17,465,   6   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  50,  2  Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.   (Pa.) 
385;   Woodworth  v.  Curtis,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,013,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  603,  2  Woodb.  &  M. 
524;  Wooster  v.  Sidenberg,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

18.039,  2   Ban.  &  A.  91,    13   Blatchf.   88,    10 
Off.  Gaz.   244. 

3.  Wooster    v.    Taylor,    30    Fed.    Cas.    No. 

18.040,  1   Ban.  &  A.  594,   12  Blatchf.  384,  8 
Off.  Gaz.  644. 

4.  Day  v.  Union  India-Rubber  Co.,  7  Fed. 
Cas.   No.   3,691,  3  Blatchf.   488    [affirmed   in 
20  How.  216,  15  L.  ed.  833]. 

5.  Whitson  v.  Columbia  Phonograph  Co.,  18 
App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   565;  Garst  v.  Harris,  177 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     959 


him  an  infringer  of  the  patent.6  A  party  selling  patented  machines  may  impose 
any  conditions  desired  upon  the  use  or  further  sale  of  those  machines,  and  a  pur- 
chaser with  notice  is  bound  by  those  conditions.7  But  a  purchaser  without  notice 
of  any  private  agreements  between  the  patentee  and  his  licensee  is  not  bound 
thereby.8 

e.  Rights,  Remedies,  and  Liabilities 9  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  The  rights  and  lia- 
bilities of  the  parties  arise  from  the  license  contract  and  are  to  be  determined  from 
its  terms  and  conditions.10  Where  a  licensee  violates  his  express  covenants  or 
repudiates  the  license,  the  licensor  may  sue  either  for  breach  of  the  agreement  or 
for  infringement.11  Where  the  licensee  has  exclusive  right  within  certain  terri- 
tory the  patentee  cannot  invade  that  right  and  the  licensee  may  maintain  suit 
against  him  for  infringement.12 

(n)  ENJOINING  USE  OF  INVENTION.  A  provisional  injunction  will  be  granted 
against  a  licensee  to  restrain  his  use  of  a  patented  machine  in  violation  of  restric- 
tions contained  in  the  license.13  But  such  an  injunction  will  be  refused  where  it 
appears  that  the  licensee  violated  the  restrictions  under  a  misapprehension  of  his 
rights,  and  had  discontinued  the  violation.14  So  where  a  licensee  undertakes  to 
use  a  patent  without  paying  the  license-fee,  the  use  will  be  enjoined  whether  or 
not  the  license  becomes  voidable  at  law.15  The  exercise  of  a  license  to  build  a  cer- 


Mass.  72,  58  N.  Er  174;  Burke  v.  Partridge, 
58  N.  H.  349;  Bement  v.  National  Harrow 
Co.,  186  U.  S.  70,  22  S.  Ct.  747,  46  L.  ed. 
1058;  National  Phonograph  Co.  v.  Schlegel, 
128  Fed.  733,  64  C.  C.  A.  594;  Victor  Talk- 
ing Mach.  Co.  v.  The  Fair,  123  Fed.  424,  61 
C.  C.  A.  58 ;  Edison  Phonograph  Co.  v.  Pike, 
116  Fed.  863;  Cortelyou  v.  Lowe,  111  Fed. 
1005,  49  C.  C.  A.  671;  Edison  Phonograph 
Co.  v.  Kaufmann,  105  Fed.  960;  Dickerson  v. 
Tinling,  84  Fed.  192,  28  C.  C.  A.  139;  Heaton- 
Peninsular  Button-Fastener  Co.  v.  Eureka 
Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25  C.  C.  A.  267, 
35  L.  R.  A.  728;  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Southern  Wire  Co.,  37  Fed.  428;  Brooks 
v.  Stolley,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,962,  3  McLean 
523,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  281;  Dorsey  Revolving 
Harvester  Rake  Co.  v.  Bradley  Mfg.  Co.,  7 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,015,  1  Ban.  &  A.  330,  12 
Blatchf.  202;  Goodyear  v.  Day,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,567;  Wood  v.  Wells,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,967,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  382;  Woodworth  v. 
Cook,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,011,  2  Blatchf.  151, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  423. 

An  agreement  to  use  only  the  patented 
form  is  not  contrary  to  public  policy.  Jones 
v.  Lees,  1  H.  &  N.  189,  2  Jur.  N.  S.  645,  26 
L.  J.  Exch.  9. 

6.  Cortelyou     v.    Johnson,    138    Fed.    110 
[reversed  in  145  Fed.   933,  76  C.  C.  A.  455, 
and  later  decision  affirmed  in  207  U.  S.  196, 
28  S.  Ct.  105,  on  the  ground  that  there  was  no 
sufficient   proof   of   notice   of   restrictions   on 
sale]  ;  Victor  Talking  Mach.  Co.  v.  The  Fair, 
123  Fed.  424,  61  C.  C.  A.  58;  Edison  Phono- 
graph Co.  v.  The  Pike,  116  Fed.  863;  Edison 
Phonograph  Co.  v.  Kaufmann,  105  Fed.  960; 
Tubular  Rivet,  etc.,  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  93  Fed. 
200;    Chambers   v.    Smith,    5    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
2,582,   5   Fish.  Pat.   Cas.   12,  7   Phila.    (Pa.) 
575. 

7.  Victor  Talking  Mach.  Co.  v.  The  Fair, 
123  Fed.  424,  61  C.  C.  A.  58;  Edison  Phono- 
graph   Co.    v.    Pike,    116    Fed.    863;    Edison 
Phonograph  Co.  v.  Kaufmann,  105  Fed.  960; 


Heaton-Peninsular  Button-Fastener  Co.  v. 
Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25  C.  C.  A. 
267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728;  Porter  Needle  Co.  v. 
National  Needle  Co.,  17  Fed.  536;  American 
Cotton-Tie  Supply  Co.  v.  Bullard,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  294,  4  Ban.  &  A.  520,  17  Blatchf.  160,  9 
Reporter  70,  17  Off.  Gaz.  389;  Wilson  v. 
Sherman,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,833,  1  Blatchf. 
536,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  361;  British' Muto- 
scope,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Homer,  [1901]  1  Ch.  671, 
70  L.  J.  Ch.  279,  84  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  26,  49 
Wkly.  Rep.  277. 

Notice  of  conditions  printed  and  posted 
upon  each  machine  is  binding  upon  pur- 
chasers. Cortelyou  v.  Johnson,  138  Fed.  110 
[reversed  in  145  Fed.  933,  76  C.  C.  A.  455  (see 
same  case,  207  U.  S.  196,  28  St.  Ct.  105)]; 
Heaton-Peninsular  Button-Fastener  Co.  v. 
Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25  C.  C.  A. 
267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728. 

8.  Washing   Mach.    Co.   v.   Earle,    29    Fed. 
"Cas.    No.    17,219,    2    Fish.   Pat.    Cas.    203,    3 
Wall.  Jr.  320. 

9.  Recovery  of  royalties  see  infra,  XI,  B,  3. 
Revocation  of  license  see  infra,  XI,  B,  1,  g. 

10.  See  supra,  XI,  B,  1,  d,  (in). 

11.  Cohn  v.  National  Rubber   Co.,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,968,  6  Ban.  &  A.  568,  15  Off.  Gaz. 
829;   England  v.  Thompson,  8   Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,487,  3  Cliff.  271;   Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Elm 
City  Co.,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,949,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
152,  13  Blatchf.   151,  8  Off.  Gaz.  773. 

12.  Whitson  v.  Columbia  Phonograph  Co., 
18    App.    Cas.     (D.    C.)    565;    Waterman    v. 
McKenzie,  138  U.  S.  252,  US.  Ct.  334,  34 
L.    ed.    923;    Wilson    v.    Rousseau,    4    How. 
(U.  S.)    646,  11  L.  ed.   1141. 

13.  Wilson  v.  Sherman,   30   Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,833,  1  Blatchf.  536,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  361. 

14.  Wilson  v.  Sherman,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,833,  1  Blatchf.  536,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  361. 

15.  Day    v.    Hartshorn,    7    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
3,683,   3    Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   32;    Woodworth  v. 
>Veed,    30    Fed.   Cas.   No.    18,022,    1    Blatchf. 
165,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.   108. 

[XI,  B,  1,  6,  (II)] 


960     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


tain  number  of  patented  machines  will  not  be  restrained  until  such  number  of 
machines  has  been  completed.16  A  bill  by  a  licensee  to  enjoin  the  licensor  from 
manufacturing  the  goods  contrary  to  his  agreement  cannot  be  maintained  where 
it  appears  that  the  licensee  himself  has  ceased  to  manufacture  any  goods  under 
the  license.17 

(in)  LIABILITY  FOR,  AND  RECOVERY  OF,  CONSIDERATION  FOR  LICENSE.™  The 
grant  of  a  license  to  make,  use,  or  sell  a  patented  article  is  a  sufficient  consid- 
eration to  support  a  promise  to  pay  the  price  of  such  license  if  the  patent  is 
valid,  although  it  may  not  be  a  profitable  one.19  Where  the  compensation  for 
the  use  of  the  patent  is  not  fixed  by  the  con  tract,  and  where  there  is  no  established 
license-fee,  the  licensor  is  entitled  to  the  reasonable  value  of  such  use.20 

f.  Assignments  and  Sublieenses  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  Generally  a  license  by  a 
patentee  is  personal  to  the  licensee,  and  not  transferable.21  In  order  to  give  the 
quality  of  assignability  to  a  mere  license  it  must  contain  express  words  to  that 
effect,  must  run  to  the  licensee  and  his  assigns,  or  by  other  equivalent  language 
indicate  the  intention  to  make  the  privilege  transmissible  by  the  licensee.22  A 
licensee  cannot  apportion  his  license  by  assignment,  unless  a  manifest  intent  to 
confer  such  a  right  appears  in  the  contract  of  license ;  ^  and  such  intent  cannot 
be  inferred  merely  from  the  grant  to  him  and  his  u  assigns."  **  But  where  such 
a  license  runs  to  the  executors  and  administrators  of  the  licensees  as  well  as  to 
their  assigns,  it  is  apportionable  and  divisible  by  assignment,  and  may  be  trans- 
ferred in  severalty  by  one  of  the  licensees.25 

(n)  ASSENT  TO  OR  RECOGNITION  OF  ASSIGNMENT  BY  LICENSOR.  A  continu- 
ing; assignable  quality  may  be  given  to  a  licensee  to  use  a  patented  invention 


16.  Aspinwall    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Gill,    32    Fed. 
702.    ' 

17.  Adams,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Westlake,  53 
Fed.  588. 

18.  Recovery   of   royalties   see   infra,    XI, 
B,  3. 

19.  Elmer  v.  Fennel,  40  Me.  430;   Wilson 
v.  Hentges,  26  Minn.  288,  3  N.  W.  338 ;  Mont- 
gomery 17.  Waterbury,  2  Misc.  (N.  Y.)   145,  21 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  631  [affirmed  in  142  N.  Y.  652, 
37     N.     E.     569] ;     Sherman    v.     Champlain 
Transp.  Co.,  31  Vt.  162. 

Want  of  consideration. —  The  utter  worth- 
lessness  of  a  patent  right  is  a  perfect  de- 
fense to  a  suit  on  a  note  given  by  a  licensee 
(Clough  v.  Patrick,  37  Vt.  421)  ;  and  it  is 
sufficient  to  sustain  a  plea  of  want  of  con- 
sideration to  show  that  no  patent  had  ever 
issued  for  the  article  licensed  to  be  made  and 
sold  (Brown  v.  Wright,  17  Ark.  9),  or  that 
the  patent  issued  was  void  (Harlow  v.  Put- 
nam, 124  Mass.  553). 

20.  Griffin  v.  White,  142  N.  Y.  539,  37  N.  E. 
468;    Skinner    v.    Walter    A.    Wood    Mowing 
Mach.  Co.,  14  N.  Y.  St.  317. 

How  value  determined.—  To  determine  this 
value  all  the  elements  of  value  on  the  case 
will  be  considered  (Berdan  Firearms  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  U.  S.,  26  Ct.  Cl.  48  [affirmed  in  156 
U.  S.  552,  15  S.  Ct.  420,  39  L.  ed.  530]; 
McKeever  v.  U.  S.,  14  Ct.  Cl.  396)  ;  and  the 
testimony  of  experts  is  also  admissible  for 
this  purpose  (Deane  v.  Hodge,  35  Minn.  146, 
27  N.  W.  917,  59  Am.  Rep.  321). 

21.  Hapgood  v.  Hewitt,   119  U.  S.  226,  7 
S.  Ct.  193,  30  L.  ed.  369;  Oliver  v.  Rumford 
Chemical  Works,  109  U.  S.  75,  3  S.  Ct.  61, 
27   L.   ed.   862;    Troy   Iron,   etc.,    Factory   v. 
Corning,  14  How.  (U.  S.)   193,  14  L.  ed.  383; 

[XI,  B,  1,  e,  (n)] 


Bowers  v.  Lake  Superior  Contracting,  etc., 
Co.,  149  Fed.  983,  79  C.  C.  A.  493;  Walter 
A.  Wood  Harvester  Co.  v.  Minneapolis-Esterly 
Harvester  Co.,  61  Fed.  256;  Waterman  v. 
Shipman,  55  Fed.  982,  5  C.  C.  A.  371;  Eclipse 
Windmill  Co.  v.  Woodmanse  Windmill  Co., 
24  Fed.  650;  Curran  v.  Craig,  22  Fed.  101; 
Gibbs  v.  Hoefner,  19  Fed.  323;  Wilson  v. 
Stolley,  30  Fed.  Gas.  No.  17,840,  5  McLeaa 
1,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  261.  But  see  Baldwin  v. 
Sibley,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  805,  1  Cliff.  150; 
Brooks  v.  Stolley,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,963, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  137,  4  McLean  275. 

An  implied  license  to  make  and  use  does 
not  pass  by  an  administrator's  sale  of  the 
licensee's  place  of  business,  including  a  few 
articles  covered  by  the  patent.  Kraatz  v. 
Tieman,  79  Fed.  322. 

22.  Tuttle  v.  La  Dow,  54  Hun  (N.  Y.)  149, 
7  N.  Y.  Suppl.  277 ;  Oliver  v.  Rumford  Chemi- 
cal Works,  109  U.  S.  75,  3  S.  Ct.  61,  27  L.  ed. 
862;  Troy  Iron,  etc.,  Factory  v.  Corning,  14 
How.   (U.  S.)    193,  14  L.  ed.  383;  Bowers  v. 
Lake  Superior  Contracting,  etc.,  Co.,  149  Fed. 
983,    79    C.   C.   A.   493;    Waldo   V.   American 
Soda  Fountain  Co.,  92  Fed.  623;  Walter  A. 
Wood   Harvester    Co.    v.   Minneapolis-Esterly 
Harvester  Co.,  61   Fed.  256;  Adams  v.  How- 
ard, 22  Fed.  656,  23  Blatchf.  27;  Putnam  v. 
Hollender,  6  Fed.  882,  19  Blatchf.  48. 

23.  Consolidated  Fruit-Jar  Co.  v.  Whitney, 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,132,   1  Ban.  &  A.  356,   10 
Phila.    (Pa.)    268. 

24.  Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  California  Elec- 
tric Light  Co.,  52  Fed.  945,  3  C.  C.  A.  368; 
Brooks   v.    Byam,   4    Fed.    Cas.   No.    1,948,   2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  161,  2  Story  525. 

25.  Adams    v.    Howard,    22    Fed.    656,    23 
Blatchf.  27. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     961 


originally  unassignable,  by  facts  and  circumstances  and  the  conduct  of  the  parties 
during  the  continuance  of  the  license.26  Even  where  a  license  contains  a  stipu- 
lation that  it  should  be  non-transferable,  it  may  be  assigned  with  the  assent  of 
the  licensor,  since  such  a  stipulation  is  for  his  sole  benefit.27 

(in)  RIGHTS  AND  LIABILITIES  OF  PARTIES.  In  the  case  of  an  assignment  of 
a  license,  the  assignee  is  bound  to  perform  the  conditions  of  the  license,  or  the 
license  will  become  forfeited.28  But  in  the  absence  of  any  statutory  provision  the 
owner  of  a  patented  invention  is  not  required  to  give  notice  to  a  voluntary  pur- 
chaser of  a  licensee's  right  in  order  to  enable  him  to  hold  such  purchaser  to  the 
restricted  use  and  enjoyment  of  the  invention  stipulated  in  the  license.29  It  is 
the  duty  of  the  purchaser  to  inform  himself  of  the  nature  of  the  licensee's  owner- 
ship, and  the  extent  of  his  right.30 

g.  Revocation,  Forfeiture,  or  Other  Termination 81  —  (i)  B  Y  LICENSOR. 
Where  a  license  contains  no  power  of  revocation  it  cannot  be  annulled  by  the 
licensor  without  the  consent  of  the  licensee,82  but  he  must  proceed  at  law  for 
breach  of  contract.33  A  breach  of  covenant  does  not  per  se  work  a  forfeiture  of 
a  patent  license,34  even  if  the  license  contains  an  express  stipulation  to  that  effect.35 
It  will  remain  in  force  so  as  to  defeat  a  suit  against  the  licensee  for  infringement 
until  it  has  been  rescinded  by  decree  of  a  court  having  jurisdiction.86  Where  the 
licensor  has  an  adequate  remedy  at  law,  equity  will  not  interfere.37  Where  stipu- 
lations as  to  termination  are  included  in  the  license  they  must  be  followed,  and 


26.  Bowers  v.  Lake   Superior  Contracting, 
etc.,  Co.,  149  Fed.  983,  79  C.  C.  A.  493. 

Thus  the  patentee  may  affirm  an  assign- 
ment by  a  licensee  by  receiving  royalties  from 
such  assignee  or  otherwise  recognizing  and 
dealing  with  him  as  a  licensee.  Havana 
Press  Drill  Co.  v.  Ashurst,  148  111.  115,  35 
N.  E.  873;  Wilde  v.  Smith,  8  Daly  (N.  Y.) 
196;  Lane,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Locke,  150  U.  S.  193, 
14  S.  Ct.  78,  37  L.  ed.  1049;  Holmes  Burglar 
Alarm  Tel.  Co.  v.  Domestic  Tel.,  etc.,  Co., 
42  Fed.  220;  Bloomer  v.  Gilpin,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,558,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  50. 

27.  Scutt    v.    Robertson,    127    111.    135,    19 
N.  E.  851. 

28.  Moody  v.  Taber,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,747, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  41,  Holmes  325,  5  Off.  Gaz.  273; 
Wilson  ?;.   Stolley,   30   Fed.   Cas.  No.   17,840, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  261,  5  McLean   1. 

The  grantee  from  a  licensee  must  pay  the 
license-fees  stipulated  in  the  license  from  the 
patentee.  Paper  Stock  Disinfecting  Co.  v. 
Boston  Disinfecting  Co.,  147  Mass.  318,  17 
N.  E.  554;  Goodyear  v.  Congress  Rubber  Co., 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,565,  3  Blatchf.  449.  But 
he  will  not  be  enjoined  from  acting  under 
the  license  because  of  failure  of  his  grantee 
to  pay  license-fees  accrued  before  the  con- 
veyance, nor  is  he  liable  therefor.  Goodyear 
v.  Congress  Rubber  Co.,  supra. 

29.  Chambers   v.   Smith,    5    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
2,582,   5  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.    12,   7   Phila.    (Pa.) 
575. 

30.  Chambers   v.   Smith,    5    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
2,582,  5   Fish.  Pat.   Cas.   12,  7  Phila.    (Pa.) 
575. 

31.  Duration  of  license  in  general  see  supra, 
XI,  B,  1,  c. 

32.  Scutt   v.   Robertson,    127    111.    135,    19 
N.  E.  851;  Barclay  v.  Charles  Roome  Parmele 
Co.,  70  N.  J.  Eq.  218,  61  Atl.  715;  Bezer  v. 
Hall  Signal  Co.,  22  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  489,  48 

[61] 


N.  Y.  Suppl.  203;  Consolidated  Oil  Well 
Packer  Co.  v.  Jarecki  Mfg.  Co.,  157  Pa.  St. 
342,  27  Atl.  543,  545;  Wagner  Typewriter 
Co.  v.  Watkins,  84  Fed.  57;  Brush  Electric 
Co.  v.  California  Electric  Light  Co.,  52  Fed. 
945,  3  C.  C.  A.  368;  Illingworth  v.  Spauld- 
ing,  43  Fed.  827;  Goddard  v.  Wilde,  17  Fed. 
845;  Kelly  v.  Porter,  17  Fed.  519,  8  Sawy. 
482;  Cook  v.  Bidwell,  8  Fed.  452;  Burdell  v. 
Denig.  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,142,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  588;  Bower  v.  Hodges,  13  C.  B.  765,  17 
Jur.  1057,  22  L.  J.  C.  P.  194,  76  E.  C.  L.  765; 
Tielens  v.  Hooper,  5  Exch.  830,  20  L.  J.  Exch. 
78;  Guyot  v.  Thomson,  71  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
124,  8  Reports  810  [affirmed  in  [1894]  3  Ch. 
388,  64  L.  J.  Ch.  32,  71  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  416, 
8  Reports  814  note]  ;  Ward  v.  Livesey,  5  Rep. 
Pat.  Cas.  102 ;  McLaughlin  v.  Lake  Erie,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  2  Ont.  L.  Rep.  190. 

33.  Chase  v.  Cox,  41  Fed.  475. 

34.  Maitland   v.   Central  Gas,  etc.,   Co.,   7 
Misc.    (N.  Y.)   408,  27  N.  Y.  Suppl.  965   [af- 
firming  7  Misc.  245,  27  N.  Y.  Suppl.  421]; 
New   York    Phonograph    Co.    v.    Edison,    136 
Fed.  600  [affirmed  in  144  Fed.  404,  75  C.  C.  A. 
382];  Hanifen  v.  Lupton,  95  Fed.  465;  Dare 
v.    Boylston,    6    Fed.    493,    18    Blatchf.    548; 
White*  v.    Lee,    3    Fed.    222;    Woodworth    v. 
Weed,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,022,  1  Blatchf.  165, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  108. 

35.  Standard  Dental  Mfg.  Co.  v.  National 
Tooth  Co.,  95  Fed.  291. 

36.  Planifen  v.  Lupton,  95  Fed.  465 ;  Stand- 
ard Dental  Mfg.  Co.  v.  National  Tooth  Co., 
95   Fed.  291. 

The  exceptions  to  this  rule  are  where  the 
licensee  has  assumed  such  a  hostile  attitude 
toward  the  patent  as  to  amount  to  a  repudia- 
tion of  the  right  conveyed  by  the  license. 
Wood  v.  Wells,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,967,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  382. 

37.  Densmore  v.  Tanite  Co.,   32  Fed.   544. 

[XI,  B,  1,  g,  (I)] 


962     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


when  performed  end  the  agreement.38  An  agreement  that  upon  failure  of  a  party 
to  a  license  to  perform  his  covenant  it  may  be  forfeited  by  a  written  notice  served 
on  him  is  valid,  and  may  be  enforced.39 

(n)  BY  LICENSEE.  In  the  absence  of  a  stipulation  to  that  effect,  a  license  is 
not  revocable  by  the  licensee,  except  by  mutual  consent,  or  by  the  fault  of  the 
other  party.40  When  so  stipulated  a  licensee  may  terminate  the  license  by  giving 
written  notice,  and  he  will  no  longer  be  liable  for  royalty  under  it;41  but  the 
notice  given  must  be  clear  and  unequivocal.42  The  surrender  of  a  license  by  part 
of  the  licensees  does  not  avoid  the  license  as  to  the  remainder  of  the  licensees.43 

(m)  BY  DEATH  OF  LICENSEE.  A  mere  personal  license  is  immediately  ter- 
minated by  the  death  of  the  licensee,  and  no  rights  thereunder  pass  to  his  personal 
representatives.44 

(iv)  BY  DISSOLUTION  OF  PARTNERSHIP  OR  CORPORATION.  The  dissolution 
of  a  partnership  or  corporation  exercising  a  patent  license  extinguishes  the  license, 
in  the  absence  of  language  importing  transferability,45  except  as  to  a  continuing 
partner.46 

(v)  REVIVAL  OF  FORFEITED  LICENSE.  A  license  declared  forfeited  for  breach 
of  conditions  cannot  be  revived  by  a  tender  of  royalties  due.47 

2.  CONTRACTS.48  Contracts  in  regard  to  patent  rights  are  interpreted  and 
enforced  in  the  same  manner  as  other  legal  engagements.49 


38.  Garver   v.   Bement,    69   Mich.    149,   37 
N.  W.  63 ;  Warth  v.  Liebovitz,  83  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.   632,  82  N.  Y.   Suppl.  578    [affirmed  in 
179  N.  Y.  200,  71  N.  E.  734] ;  Pitts  v.  Jame- 
son,  15  Barb.    (N.  Y.)    310;   Stimpson  Com- 
puting Scale  Co.  v.  W.  F.  Stimpson  Co.,  104 
Fed.    893,    44    C.    C.   A.    241;    Union   Switch, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson,  72  Fed.  147,  18  C.  C.  A. 
490;   Woodworth  v.  Weed,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,022,    1   Blatchf.    165,   Fish.  Pat.  Rep.   108. 

39.  Hammacher  v.  Wilson,  26  Fed.  239. 
Necessity    of   notice. —  In   case   of    default 

written  notice  must  be  served  on  the  licensee 
in  order  to  terminate  the  license,  where  such 
license  provides  in  terms  for  such  notice. 
Kurd  v.  Gere,  27  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  625,  50 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  235;  Rogers  v.  Riessner,  30 
Fed.  525 ;  White  v.  Lee,  3  Fed.  222. 

40.  St.  Paul  Plow-Works  v.  Starling,   140 
U.    S.    184,    11    S.    Ct.    803,    35    L.    ed.    404; 
Laver  v.  Dennett,  109  U.  S.  90,  3  S.  Ct.  73,  27 
L.  ed.  867;   Cherry  v.  Heming,  2  Exch.  557, 
17    L.    J.    Exch.    305;    Lewin   v.    Brown,    14 
Wkly.  Rep.  640. 

Licensee  may  abandon  license  where  pat- 
ent is  void  see  Standard  Button  Fastening 
Co.  v.  Ellis,  159  Mass.  448,  34  N.  E.  682; 
Harlow  v.  Putnam,  124  Mass.  553 ;  Forncrook 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Barnum  Wire,  etc.,  Works,  63 
Mich.  195,  29  N.  W.  537;  Macon  Knitting  Co. 
t?.  Leicester  Mills  Co.,  65  N.  J.  Eq.  138,  55 
Atl.  401;  Marston  v.  Swett,  82  N.  Y.  526; 
Edison  Gen.  Electric  Co.  v.  Thackara  Mfg. 
Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  530,  31  Atl.  856;  Ross  v. 
Fuller,  etc.,  Co.,  105  Fed.  510;  Mudgett  v. 
Thomas,  55  Fed.  645. 

41.  Garver   v.    Bement,    69   Mich.    149,    37 
N.  W.  63. 

42.  Skinner   v.   Walter   A.   Wood  Mowing, 
etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  140  N.  Y.  217,  35  N.  E.  491, 
37  Am.  St.  Rep.  540;  Hurd  v.  Gere,  27  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  625,  50  N.  Y.  Suppl.  235. 

43.  Theberath  v.  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed. 
143. 

[XI,  B,  1,  g,  (i)] 


44.  Smith    v.    Preston,    170    111.    179,    48 
N.    E.    688;     Oliver    v.    Rumford    Chemical 
Works,  109  U.  S.  75,  3  S.  Ct.  61,  27  L.  ed. 
862. 

45.  Warth  v.  Mertens,  71  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
395,  75  N.  Y.  Suppl.   1092   [affirmed  in   173 
N.  Y.  626,  66  N.  E.  1117] ;  Hapgood  v.  Hewitt, 
119  U.  S.  226,  7  S.  Ct.   193,  30  L.  ed.  369; 
Carroll   v.   Goldschmidt,   80   Fed.   520;    Elgin 
Wind  Power,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Nichols,  65  Fed.  215, 
12  C.  C.  A.  578;   HafTcke  v.  Clark,  50  Fed. 
531,  1  C.  C.  A.  570;  Curran  v.  Craig,  22  Fed. 
101;    Hapgood   v.    Hewitt,    11    Fed.    422,    11 
Biss.    184.      But    see    Wilson    v.    Mechanical 
Orguinette  Co.,  170  N.  Y.  542,  63  N.  E.  550 
[reversing  57  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  158,  68  N.  Y. 
Suppl.   173]. 

46.  Belding    v.    Turner,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
1,243,    8    Blatchf.    321,    4    Fish.    Pat.    Cas. 
446. 

47.  Platt  v.  Fire-Extinguisher  Mfg.  Co.,  59 
Fed.  897,  8  C.  C.  A.  357. 

48.  Power  of  attorney  to  procure  or  man- 
age patent  see  PRINCIPAL  AND  AGENT. 

49.  Eureka    Clothes    Wringing    Mach.    Co. 
V.  Bailev  Washing,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  11  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  *488,  20  L.  ed.  209;  Heaton-Peninsular 
Button-Fastener  Co.  v.  Eureka  Specialty  Co., 
77  Fed.  288,  25  C.  C.  A.  267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728 ; 
Morse  v.   O'Reilly,    17    Fed.   Cas.  No.   9,858; 
Star   Salt   Caster   Co.  v.   Crossman,   22    Fed. 
Cas.  No.   13,321,  3   Ban.  &  A.  281,  4  Cliff. 
568. 

Intention  of  parties  controls  see  Thorn 
Wire  Hedge  Co.  v.  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co., 
159  U.  S.  423,  16  S.  Ct.  94,  40  L.  ed.  205; 
Wooster  r.  Trowbridge,  120  Fed.  667,  57 
C.  C.  A.  129  [affirming  115  Fed.  722];  Hartz 
V.  Cleveland  Block  Co.,  95  Fed.  681,  37 
C.  C.  A.  227;  Macallen  Co.  v.  Johns-Pratt 
Co.,  80  Fed.  410. 

Unambiguous  contract  not  changed  by 
parol  evidence  see  Ralya  v.  Atkins,  157  Ind. 
331,  61  N.  E.  726. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     963 


3.  ROYALTIES  —  a.  Rights  and  Liabilities  of  Parties  —  (i)  WHEN  ROYALTIES 
DUE.  The  time  during  which  royalty  must  be  paid  depends  entirely  upon  the 
terms  of  the  contract.50  No  royalties,  however,  can  be  required  on  an  agreement 
to  grant  a  license  under  a  patent  if  the  patent  is  never  granted.51 

(n)  AMOUNT  OF  ROYALTY.  The  amount  of  royalty  to  which  the  licensor  is 
entitled  is  the  amount  which  has  been  fixed  in  the  license  agreement52  or  in  the 


Not  construed  to  be  retroactive  see  Na- 
tional Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Willcox,  etc.,  Sew- 
ing-Mach.  Co.,  74  Fed.  557,  20  C.  C.  A. 
654. 

Consideration  see  Magnolia  Anti-Friction 
Metal  Co.  v.  Singley,  17  N.  Y.  Suppl.  251 
[affirmed  in  137  N.  Y.  557,  33  N.  E.  337J  ; 
Piaget  Novelty  Co.  v.  Headley,  108  Fed.  870, 
48  C.  C.  A.  116  [affirming  107  Fed.  134]. 

Contract  rather  than  the  patent  controls 
see  Wilder  v.  Adams,  16  Gray  (Mass.)  478; 
Eureka  Clothes  Wringing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Bailey 
Washing,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
488,  20  L.  ed.  209 ;  Harvey  Steel  Co.  v.  U.  S., 
39  Ct.  Cl.  297. 

Binding  on  successors  see  Pratt  v.  Wil- 
cox  Mfg.  Co.,  64  Fed.  589. 

Damages  for  breach  see  Standard  Fire- 
proofing  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Expanded  Metal 
Fireproofing  Co.,  177  Mo.  559,  76  S.  W.  1008. 

Agreement  not  to  dispute  validity  of  pat- 
ent is  not  against  public  policy.  Philadel- 
phia Creamery  Supply  Co.  v.  Davis,  etc.,  Co., 
77  Fed.  879;  Pratt  v.  Wilcox  Mfg.  Co.,  64 
Fed.  589. 

Agreement  not  to  defend  against  any  pat- 
ents owned  by  the  plaintiff  is  against  public 
policy  and  void.  Pope  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gormully, 
144  U.  S.  224,  12  S.  Ct.  632,  36  L.  ed.  414. 

Contracts  construed  see  Eclipse  Bicycle  Co. 
v.  Farrow,  16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  468;  Lam- 
son  v.  Martin,  159  Mass.  557,  35  N.  E.  78; 
Mouat  v.  Bamlet,  123  Mich.  345,  82  N.  W. 
74;  Myrick  v.  Purcell,  99  Minn.  457,  109 
N.  W.  995;  Mankato  Mills  Co.  v.  Willard,  94 
Minn.  160,  102  N.  W.  202;  Standard  Fire- 
proofing  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Expanded  Metal 
Fireproofing  Co.,  177  Mo.  559,  76  S.  W.  1008; 
Bancroft  v.  Union  Embossing  Co.,  72  N.  H. 
402,  57  Atl.  97,  64  L.  R.  A.  298;  Peck  r. 
Collins,  70  N.  Y.  376  [affirmed  in  103  U.  S. 
660,  26  L.  ed.  512]  ;  Corbet  v.  Manhattan 
Brass  Co.,  93  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  217,  87  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  577;  Ebert.0.  Loewenstein,  42  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  109,  58  N.  Y.  Suppl.  889  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  167  N.  Y.  577,  60  N.  E. 
1110];  Miller  v.  Jones,  67  Hun  (N.  Y.)  281, 
22  N.  Y.  Suppl.  86;  Hargraves  v.  A.  B.  Pit- 
kin  Mach.  Co.,  19  R.  I.  426,  34  Atl.  738; 
Vaughan  v.  Porter,  16  Vt.  266;  Murphey  v. 
Weil,  92  Wis.  467,  66  N.  W.  532;  Thorn 
Wire  Hedge  Co.  v.  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co., 
150  U.  S.  423,  16  S.  Ct.  94,  40  L.  ed.  205; 
Ball,  etc.,  Fastener  Co.  v.  Patent  Button  Co., 
152  Fed.  187;  New  York  Phonograph  Co.  v. 
Edison,  136  Fed.  600  [affirmed  in  144  Fed. 
404,  75  C.  C.  A.  382] ;  Kenny  v.  Knight,  119 
Fed.  475;  Wooster  v.  Trowbridge,  115  Fed. 
722;  Kerr  v.  Southwick,  109  Fed.  482;  Fox 
Solid  Pressed  Steel  Co.  v.  Schoen,  77  Fed. 
29;  Denning  v.  Bray,  61  Fed.  651,  10  C.  C.  A. 
6;  Goddard  v.  Wilde,  17  Fed.  845;  Dibble 


v.  Augur,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,879,  7  Blatchf. 
86.  See  also  Eclipse  Bicycle  Co.  v.  Farrow, 
199  U.  S.  581,  26  S.  Ct.  150,  50  L.  ed.  317. 

50.  Rhodes    v.    Ashurst,    176    111.    351,    52 
N.  E.  118;   Burton  v.  Burton  Stock-Car  Co., 
171  Mass.   437,  50  N.   E.  1029;   Hamilton  v. 
Park,    etc.,    Co.,    112    Mich.    138,    70   N.    W. 
436;  Nilsson  v.  De  Haven,  168  N.  Y.  656,  61 
N.  E.  1131;  Fries  v.  Merck,  167  N.  Y.  445,  60 
N.    E.    777;    Bezer    v.    Hall    Signal    Co.,    22 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.   489,  48  N.  Y.   Suppl.   203; 
People  v.  Remington,   59  Hun    (N.  Y.)    282, 
12   N.    Y.    Suppl.    824,    14   N.   Y.    Suppl.   98 
[affirmed  in  126  N.  Y.  654,  27  N.  E.  853]; 
Union    Mfg.    Co.    v.     Lounsbury,     42     Barb. 
(N.  Y.)   125  [affirmed  in  41  N.  Y.  363]  ;  Will- 
cox,  etc.,  Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Sherborn,  109 
Fed.  319,  48  C.  C.  A.  378;  Shepard  v.  Kinner, 
86  Fed.  638,  30  C.  C.  A.  315. 

Release. —  Invalidity  of  patent  releases  li- 
censee if  he  quits  using  invention.  Standard 
Button  Fastening  Co.  v.  Ellis,  159  Mass.  448, 
34  N.  E.  682 ;  Harlow  v.  Putnam,  124  Mass. 
553;  Macon  Knitting  Co.  v.  Leicester  Mills 
Co.,  65  N.  J.  Eq.  138,  55  Atl.  401;  Dutchess 
Tool  Co.  -v.  Kolb,  44  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  624, 
60  N.  Y.  Suppl.  94;  Edison  Gen.  Electric  Co. 
v.  Thackara  Mfg.  Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  530,  31 
Atl.  856;  Mudgett  v.  Thomas,  55  Fed.  645. 

Date  of  payments  see  Confectioners'  Mach., 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Panoualias,  134  Fed.  393,  67 
C.  C.  A.  391;  American  Paper-Bag  Co.  v.  Van 
Nortwick,  52  Fed.  752,  3  C.  C.  A.  274;  Dare 
v.  Boylston,  6  Fed.  493,  18  Blatchf.  548; 
Brooks  v.  Stolley,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,962,  3 
McLean  523,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  281. 

Due  from  legal  representatives  after  li- 
censee's death  see  Dancel  v.  Goodyear  Shoe- 
Mach.  Co.,  109  Fed.  333. 

51.  Hamilton  17.  Park,  etc.,  Co.,  125  Mich. 
72,    83    N.    W.    1018;    Travis   v.    Hunter,    41 
Minn.  176,  42  N.  W.  1015. 

By  agreement  royalty  due  before  grant  of 
patent  see  Burton  v.  Burton  Stock- Car  Co., 
171  Mass.  437,  50  N.  E.  1029;  Hamilton  v. 
Park,  etc.,  Co.,  112  Mich.  138,  70  N.  W.  436; 
Nilsson  v.  De  Haven,  168  N.  Y.  656,  61  N.  E. 
1131;  Bezer  v.  Hall  Signal  Co.,  22  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  489,  48  N.  Y.  Suppl.  203;  Will- 
cox,  etc.,  Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Sherborn,  109 
Fed.  319,  48  C.  C.  A.  378. 

Liable  under  special  agreement  although 
patent  not  granted  see  Ingraham  v.  Schaum, 
157  Pa.  St.  88,  27  Atl.  404;  Beecher  v.  Stein, 
139  Pa.  St.  570,  21  Atl.  79. 

In  absence  of  special  agreement  due  upon 
issue  of  patent  see  D.  M.  Steward  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Steward,  109  Tenn.  288,  70  S.  W.  808. 

52.  Keith    v.    Electrical    Engineering    Co., 
136    Cal.     178,    68    Pac.    598;    Linington    v. 
Strong,  111  111.  152;  Simonds  Rolling  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Pope  Mfg.  Co.,  180  Mass.  393,  62  N.  E. 

[XI,  B,  3,  a,  (II)] 


964     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


absence  of  definite  agreement  between  the  parties  is  determined  by  what  is 
reasonable.53 

(in)  PERSONS  ENTITLED  TO  ROYALTIES.  The  owner  of  a  patent  who  grants 
a  license  is  entitled  to  royalty  in  accordance  with  the  conditions  of  the  contract 
whether  express  or  implied.54  Where  one  of  several  joint  owners  issues  a  license 
the  others  cannot  recover  part  of  the  royalty  from  the  licensee,55  nor  can  they 
recover  it  from  the  licensor  under  an  accounting.56 

(iv)  PERSONS  LIABLE  FOR  ROYALTIES.  The  licensee  is  liable  during  the 
continuation  of  the  contract  for  the  use  of  the  invention  referred  to  therein,57 


467;  McGill  v.  Holmes,  168  N.  Y.  647,  61 
N.  E.  1131. 

Minimum  sum  fixed  see  Hamilton  v.  Park, 
etc.,  Co.,  112  Mich.  138,  70  N.  W.  436;  Genet 
v.  Delaware,  etc.,  Canal  Co.,  136  N.  Y.  593, 
32  N.  E.  1078,  19  L.  R.  A.  127;  Corbet  v. 
Manhattan  Brass  Co.,  93  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
217,  87  N.  Y.  Suppl.  577;  Ebert  v.  Loe wen- 
stein,  42  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  109,  58  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
889  [affirmed  in  167  N.  Y.  577,  60  N.  E. 
1110] ;  Meyer  v.  Brenzinger,  22  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
712,  49  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1091. 

Particular  contracts  construed  see  Bates 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Cookson,  202  111.  248,  66  N.  E. 
1093;  Goodyear  Shoe  Mach.  Co.  v.  Selz,  157 
111.  186,  41  N.  E.  625;  Warth  v.  Loewenstein, 
121  111.  App.  71  [affirmed  in  part  in  219  111. 
222,  76  N.  E.  379];  Spurck  v.  Benner,  89 
111.  App.  79 ;  Cummings  v.  Standard  Harrow 
Co.,  55  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  601,  105  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
646;  Dick  v.  Bovaird,  8  Pa.  Cas.  70,  5  Atl. 
30;  Bovaird  v.  Dick,  8  Pa.  Cas.  60,  5  Atl. 
26;  Bowers  v.  Lake  Superior  Contracting, 
etc.,  Co.,  149  Fed.  983,  79  C.  C.  A.  493 ;  West- 
ern Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co., 
125  Fed.  342,  60  C.  C.  A.  220. 

Interest  on  overdue  royalty  see  Pressey  v. 
H.  B.  Smith  Mach.  Co.,  45  N.  J.  Eq.  872,  19 
Atl.  618. 

53.  Bates  Mach.   Co.  v.   Cookson,  202   111. 
248,   6t>  N.   E.    1093;    Standard  Fireproofing 
Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Expanded  Metal  Fireproofing 
Co.,  177  Mo.  559,  76  S.  W.  1008;  Ross  v.  Ful- 
ler, etc.,  Co.,  105  Fed.  510. 

54.  Blair  v.  Lippincott  Glass  Co.,  52  Fed. 
226;   Consolidated  Fruit- Jar  Co.  v.  Whitney, 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,134,  2  Ban.  &  A.  375. 

Equitable  rights  of  partner  see  Rogers  v. 
Riessner,  30  Fed.  525. 

Contract  inuring  to  benefit  of  owner  see 
Mann's  Boudoir  Car  Co.  v.  Gilbert  Car  Mfg. 
Co.,  69  Hun  (N.  Y.)  245,  23  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
697  [affirmed  in  141  N.  Y.  571,  36  N.  E. 
345] ;  Grier  v.  Baynes,  46  Fed.  523 ;  Troy 
Iron,  etc.,  Factory  v.  Corning,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,195,  1  Blatchf.  467,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
290  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  14  How. 
193,  14  L.  ed.  383]. 

Royalty  implied  under  other  patents  see 
Felix  v.  Scharnweber,  19  111.  App.  628  [af- 
firmed in  119  111.  445,  10  N.  E.  16]. 

Conduct  of  licensor  may  be  such  as  to 
estop  see  Edison  Gen.  Electric  Co.  v. 
Thackara  Mfg.  Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  530,  31  Atl. 
856 ;  Angier  v.  Eaton,  98  Pa.  St.  594.  Grant- 
ing licenses  to  others,  however,  will  not  estop 
him  in  the  absence  of  agreement.  Jarecki 
V.  Hays,  161  Pa.  St.  613,  29  AtL  118;  Hard- 

[XI,  B,  3,  a,  (II)] 


wick  v.   Galbraith,   147  Pa.  St.  333,  23  Atl. 
451. 

55.  Paulus  v.  M.  M.  Buck  Mfg.  Co.,  129 
Fed.  594,  64  C.  C.  A.  162;  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  National  Enameling,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Fed. 
77;  Levy  v.  Dattlebaum,  63  Fed.  992;  Pusey, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Miller,  61  Fed.  401. 

56.  Vose  v.  Singer,  4  Allen    (Mass.)    226, 
81  Am.  Dec.  696;  De  Witt  v.  Elmira  Nobles 
Mfg.   Co.,  5   Hun    (N.   Y.)    301    [affirmed  in 
66  N.  Y.  459,  23  Am.  Rep.  73];   Blackledge 
v.    Weir,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.,    108    Fed.    71,    47 
C.  C.  A.  212. 

57.  The  licensee  is  liable  for  at  least  the 
minimum  amount  specified;   it  makes  no  dif- 
ference whether  he  uses  the  invention  or  not. 
Linington   v.    Strong,    90    111.    556;    Simonds 
Rolling  Mach.  Co.  v.  Pope  Mfg.  Co.,  180  Mass. 
393,   62  N.   E.  467;    Wing  v.   Ansonia  Clock 
Co.,    102   N.  Y.   531,   7  N.   E.   621;    Hackett 
!?.  Hackett  Hatch  Door  Mfg.   Co.,  52   N.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  263. 

Eviction  or  proper  surrender  is  necessary 
to  terminate  liability.  Skinner  v.  Walter 
A.  Wood  Mowing,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  140  N.  Y. 
217,  35  N.  E.  491,  37  Am.  St.  Rep.  540  [af- 
firming 20  N.  Y.  Suppl.  251]  ;  Kurd  v.  Gere, 
27  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  625,  50  N.  Y.  Suppl.  235 ; 
Maitland  v.  Drew,  14  Misc.  (N.  Y.)  60,  35 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  249;  McKay  v.  Smith,  39  Fed. 
556;  McKay  v.  Jackman,  17  Fed.  641. 

Liable  after  cancellation  for  past  use  see 
Hamilton  v.  Park,  etc.,  Co.,  112  Mich.  138,  70 
N.  W.  436. 

Not  relieved  by  invalidity  of  patent  see 
Warwick  v.  Stockton,  (N.  J.  Ch.  1897)  37 
Atl.  458;  Kurd  v.  Gere,  27  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
625,  50  N.  Y.  Suppl.  235;  Holmes  v.  McGill, 
108  Fed.  238,  47  C.  C.  A.  296;  National 
Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Willcox,  etc.,  Sewing- 
Mach.  Co.,  74  Fed.  557,  20  C.  C.  A.  654; 
Covell  v.  Bostwick,  39  Fed.  421.  See  also 
supra,  VI,  F.  4. 

Infringement  by  licensor  or  others  does 
not  per  se  relieve  the  licensor.  Nunes  v.  Rus- 
sell, 65  111.  App.  171;  Skidmore  v.  Fahys 
Watch-Case  Co.,  28  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  94,  50 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  1016;  Birdsall  v.  Perego,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,435,  5  Blatchf.  251. 

Transfer  of  license  or  business  does  not 
end  liability.  Porter  v.  Standard  Measuring 
Mach.  Co.,  142  Mass.  191,  7  N.  E.  925; 
Rodgers  v.  Torrant,  43  Mich.  113,  4  N.  W. 
507;  Wilson  v.  Mechanical  Orguinette  Co., 
170  N.  Y.  542,  63  N.  E.  550;  Marsh  v.  Dodge, 
4  Hun  (N.  Y.)  278  [affirmed  in  66  N.  Y. 
533]  ;  Sherman  v.  Champlain  Transp.  Co.,  31 
Vt.  162. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     965 


whether  it  is  fully  protected  by  patent  or  not.58  He  cannot  allege  invalidity  or 
termination  of  contract  so  long  as  he  acts  under  it.59  Where  a  contractor  is 
employed  to  do  certain  work  and  in  doing  it  infringes  a  patent  the  contractor  and 
not  the  employer  is  liable.60 

(v)  LIEN.  An  agreement  to  pay  royalties  is  a  personal  contract  and  creates 
no  lien  on  the  manufactured  articles.61 

b.  Remedies.     Royalties  may  be  collected  by  an  action  at  law,62  and  an  action 


Where  the  device  infringes  another  patent 
the  licensee  may  stop  use  and  refuse  to  pay 
further  royalty.  Standard  Button  Fastening 
Co.  v.  Ellis,  159  Mass.  448,  34  N.  E.  682; 
Harlow  v.  Putnam,  124  Mass.  553;  Macon 
Knitting  Co.  v.  Leicester  Mills  Co.,  65  N.  J. 
Eq.  138,  55  Atl.  401;  Edison  Gen.  Electric 
Co.  v.  Thackara  Mfg.  Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  530, 
31  Atl.  856;  Mudgett  v.  Thomas,  55  Fed.  645; 
McKay  v.  Smith,  39  Fed.  556;  McKay  v. 
Jackman,  17  Fed.  641. 

58.  Keith  v.  Electrical  Engineering  Co., 
136  Cal.  178,  68  Pac.  598;  Eclipse  Bicycle  Co. 
v.  Farrow,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  411  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  199  U.  S.  581, 
26  S.  Ct.  150,  50  L.  ed.  317]  ;  Palmer's  Ap- 
peal, 96  Pa.  St.  106;  U.  S.  v.  Harvey  Steel 
Co.,  196  U.  S.  310,  25  S.  Ct.  240,  49  L.  ed. 
492;  Corbin  v.  Taussig,  137  Fed.  151;  Leslie 
v.  Standard  Sewing-Mach.  Co.,  98  Fed.  827, 
39  C.  C.  A.  314;  Sproull  v.  Pratt,  etc.,  Co., 
97  Fed.  807. 

Liability  includes  unpatented  as  well  as 
patented  articles  see  McGill  v.  Holmes,  48 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  628,  64  N.  Y.  Suppl.  787 
[affirmed  in  168  N.  Y.  647,  61  N.  E.  1131]. 

Agreement  controls  and  not  the  scope  of 
the  patent.  Kroegher  v.  McConway,  etc.,  Co., 
149  Pa.  St.  444,  23  Atl.  341;  Kirkpatrick  v. 
Pope  Mfg.  Co.,  64  Fed.  369. 

Substitution  of  another  device  does  not 
avoid  liability.  Eclipse  Bicycle  Co.  v. 
Farrow,  16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  468,  23  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  411  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  199  U.  S.  581,  26  S.  Ct.  150,  50  L.  ed. 
317];  Denise  v.  Swett,  68  Hun  (N.  Y.)  188, 
22  N.  Y.  Suppl.  950  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  142  N.  Y.  602,  37  N.  E.  627]. 

Not  liable  for  use  of  things  outside  of  pat- 
ent and  of  agreement  see  Forncrook  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Barnum  Wire,  etc.,  Works,  63  Mich.  195, 
29  N.  W.  537;  Dutchess  Tool  Co.  v.  Kolb,  44 
N.  Y.  App.  Div.  624,  60  N.  Y.  Suppl.  94; 
Hyatt  v.  Mark,  55  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  507,  2 
N.  Y.  Suppl.  727  [affirmed  in  124  N.  Y.  93, 
26  N.  E.  285];  Moore  v.  National  Water- 
Tube  Boiler  Co.,  84  Fed.  346 ;  Standard  Sew- 
ing-Mach. Co.  v.  Leslie,  78  Fed.  325,  24  C.  C. 
A.  107;  Covell  v.  Bostwick,  39  Fed.  421. 

Use  of  one  of  several  patents  mentioned 
see  Kline  v.  M.  Garland  Co.,  135  Mich.  313, 
97  N.  W.  768;  Pope  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Owsley,  27 
Fed.  100. 

Not  liable  for  different  invention  see 
Eclipse  Bicycle  Co.  v.  Farrow,  199  U.  S.  581, 
26  S.  Ct.  150,  50  L.  ed.  317.  Royalty  only  on 
machines  under  patent.  Goucher  v.  Clayton, 
11  Jur.  N.  S.  462,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  111. 
Liable  under  contract  whether  or  not  fol- 
lowed strictly.  Smith  v.  Goldie,  9  Can.  Sup. 
Ct.  46;  Yates  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  24 


Grant  Ch.    (U.  C.)    495;   Smith  v.  Powell,  7 
U.  C.  C.  P.  332. 

59.  Bowers'    California    Dredging    Co.    V. 
San  Francisco  Bridge  Co.,   132  Cal.   342,  64 
Pac.  475;   Illinois  Watch  Case  Co.  v.  Ecau- 
bert,    177   111.   587,   52   N.   E.   861;    Clark  v. 
Amoskeag  Mfg.  Co.,  62  N.  H.  612;  Warwick 
v.  Stockton,    (N.  J.  Ch.   1897)    37  Atl.  458; 
Hyatt  v.  Ingalls,  124  N.  Y.  93,  26  N.  E.  285 
[affirming  55  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  507,  2  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  727] ;  Dutchess  Tool  Co.  v.  Kolb,  44 
N.  Y.   App.  Div.   624,    60  N.  Y.   Suppl.  94; 
Skidmore  v.  Fahys  Watch-Case  Co.,  28  N.  Y. 
App.  Div.  94,  50  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1016;  Denise 
i;.    Swett,    68   Hun    (N.   Y.)    188,   22   N.   Y. 
Suppl.  950  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  142 
N.  Y.  602,  37  N.  E.  627] ;  Gay  lord  v.  Case,  5 
Ohio  Dec.   (Reprint)   413,  5  Am.  L.  Rec.  494; 
Consolidated  Oil  Well  Packer  Co.  v.  Jarecki 
Mfg.  Co.,  157  Pa.  St.  342,  27  Atl.  543,  545; 
U.  S.  v.  Harvey  Steel  Co.,  196  U.  S.  310,  25 
S.  Ct.  240,  49  L.  ed.  492;  American  St.  Car 
Advertising  Co.  V.  Jones,   122   Fed.   803    [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  142  Fed.  974,  74 
C.   C.  A.  236];   Holmes  v.  McGill,   108   Fed. 
238,  47  C.  C.  A.  296 ;  Leslie  v.  Standard  Sew- 
ing-Mach. Co.,  98  Fed.  827,  39  C.  C.  A.  314; 
Sproull  v.  Pratt,  etc.,  Co.,  97  Fed.  807 ;  Moore 
v.  National  Water-Tube  Boiler  Co.,  84   Fed. 
346;  Bonsack  Mach.  Co.  v.  Hess,  68  Fed.  119, 
15  C.  C.  A.  303;  Harvey  Steel  Co.  v.  U.  S., 
38  Ct.  Cl.  662. 

60.  May  v.  Juneau  County,  30  Fed.  241; 
Bryce  v.  Dorr,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,070,  3  Mc- 
Lean  582,    2    Robb    Pat.    Cas.    302;    Stow  v. 
Chicago,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,512,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
83,  8  Biss.  47  [affirmed  in  104  U.  S.  547,  26 
L.  ed.  816]. 

Release  of  contractor  releases  employer. 
Bigelow  v.  Louisville,  25  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,400, 
3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  602. 

Where  employer  is  licensee  contractor  is 
released.  Union  Switch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson 
R.  Signal  Co.,  52  Fed.  867  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  55  Fed.  487,  5  C.  C.  A.  204]. 

Both  liable  where  both  have  knowledge  see 
Palmer  v.  Landphere,  118  Fed.  52. 

61.  People  «?.  Remington,    126  N.  Y.   654, 
27  N.  E.  853  [affirming  59  Hun  282,  12  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  824,  14  N.  Y.  Suppl.  98]. 

62.  Preston    v.    Smith,    156    111.    359,    40 
N.  E.  949;  American  Merchants'  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Kantrowitz,    77    111.     App.     155;     American 
Mach.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stewart,  115  La.   188,  38 
So.  960;  Stewart  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Iron  Clad  Mfg. 
Co.,  67  N.  J.  L.  577,  52  Atl.  391 ;  Scheurle  v. 
Husbands,  65  N.  J.  L.  40,  46  Atl.  759 ;  Hyatt 
V.  Ingalls,  124  N.  Y.  93,  26  N.  E.  285;  Gug- 
genheim v.  Kirchofer,  66  Fed.  755,  14  C.  C. 
A.  72;  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co  v.  Cincinnati 
Barbed- Wire  Fence  Co.,  42  Fed.  675;  Wash- 

[XI,  B,  3,  b] 


OG6     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


for  an  accounting  may  be  joined  with  a  demand  for  equitable  relief  by  forfeiture 
of  the  license.63  State  courts  have  jurisdiction  of  an  action  to  recover  royalties 
under  an  agreement  where  there  is  no  question  as  to  the  validity  of  the  patent.64 
C.  Enforcement  of  Assignments,  Contracts,  and  Agreements.  A  court 
of  equity  will  enforce  the  rights  of  parties  under  a  contract  or  agreement  relating 
to  patent  rights  by  making  appropriate  orders  in  the  same  manner  as  under  other 
agreements.63  It  is  held  that  the  ordinary  rules  of  practice  and  procedure 


burn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Freeman  Wire  Co.,  41 
•  Fed.  410;  Moxon  v.  Bright,  L.  R.  4  Ch.  292, 
20  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  961 ;  Kernot  v.  Potter,  3 
De  G.  F.  &  J.  447,  64  Eng.  Ch.  350,  45  Eng. 
Reprint  951. 

Facts  entitling  plaintiff  to  royalty  must  be 
shown.  Meyer  v.  Saul,  82  Md.  459,  33  Atl. 
539;  Stewart  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Iron  Clad  Mfg.  Co., 
G7  N.  J.  L.  577,  52  Atl.  391;  Russell  v.  U.  S., 
35  Ct.  Cl.  154. 

May  sue  for  breach  or  for  infringement 
see  Kilburn  v.  Holmes,  121  Fed.  750,  58  C.  C. 
A.  116;  Starling  v.  St.  Paul  Plow- Works,  32 
Fed.  290;  Cohn  v.  National  Rubber  Co.,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,968,  3  Ban.  &  A.  568,  15  Off. 
<3az.  829;  England  v.  Thompson,  8  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  4,487,  3  Cliff.  271;  Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v. 
Elm  City  Co.,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,949,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  152,  13  Blatchf.  151,  8  Off.  Gaz.  773; 
Wood  worth  v.  Weed,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,022, 
1  Blatchf.  165,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  108.  But  see 
Consolidated  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  Wolf, 
28  Fed.  814. 

Invalidity  of  patent  is  no  defense.  Rhodes 
v.  Ashurst,  176  111.  351,  52  N.  E.  118;  Jones 
r.  Burnham,  67  Me.  93,  24  Am.  Rep.  10; 
Hall  Mfg.  Co.  r>.  American  R.  Supply  Co.,  48 
Mich.  331,  12  N.  W.  205;  Clark  v.  Amoskeag 
Mfg.  Co.,  62  N.  H.  612;  Warwick  v.  Stock- 
ton, (N.  J.  Ch.  1897)  37  Atl.  458;  Hyatt  v. 
Ingalls,  49  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  375;  Baylis  v. 
Bullock  Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  32  Misc.  (N.  Y.) 
218,  66  N.  Y.  Suppl.  253  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  59  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  576,  69  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  693];  McGill  v.  Holmes,  64  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  787;  Brusie  v.  Peck,  16  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
648;  Edison  Gen.  Electric  Co.  v.  Thackara 
Mfg.  Co.,  167  Pa.  St.  530,  31  Atl.  856;  In- 
graham  v.  Schaum,  157  Pa.  St.  88,  27  Atl. 
404;  Patterson's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.  521; 
Marsh  v.  Harris  Mfg.  Co.,  63  Wis.  276,  22 
N.  \V.  516;  Eureka  Clothes  Wringing  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Bailey  Washing,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  11 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  488,  20  L.  ed.  209;  Moore  v. 
National  Water-Tube  Boiler  Co.,  84  Fed.  346 ; 
Godell  r.  Wells,  etc.,  Co.,  70  Fed.  319. 

Burden  of  proof  see  Bennett  r.  Iron  Clad 
Mfg.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  133,  105  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  593. 

Weight  and  sufficiency  of  evidence  see  Ben- 
nett v.  Iron  Clad  Mfg.  Co.,  121  N.  Y.  App. 
Div.  133,  105  N.  Y.  Suppl.  593. 

Question  for  jury  see  Gaylord  v.  Case,  5 
Ohio  Dec.  (Reprint)  413,  5  Am.  L.  Rec.  494. 
Right  of  appeal  where  infringement  or 
validity  involved  see  St.  Paul  Plow-Works  7;. 
Starling,  127  U.  S.  376,  8  S.  Ct.  1327,  32 
L.  ed.  251. 

Review  on  appeal  see  Hyatt  v.  Ingalls,  124 
N.  Y.  93,  26  N.  E.  285  [affirming  55  N.  Y. 
Super.  Ct.  507..  2  N.  Y.  Suppl.  727] ;  U.  S.  v. 

[XI,  B,  3,  b] 


Berdan  Firearms  Mfg.  Co.,  156  U.  S.  552,  15 
S.  Ct.  420,  39  L.  ed.  530. 

Procedure  before  referee  see  Hyatt  v. 
Mark,  55  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct.  507,  2  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
727  [affirmed  in  124  N.  Y.  93,  26  N.  E.  285]. 

63.  Eclipse  Bicycle  Co.  v.  Farrow,  16  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  468;  Hyatt  v.  Ingalls,  124  N.  Y. 
93,  26  N.  E.  285   [affirming  55  N.  Y.  Super. 
Ct.  507,  2  N.  Y.  Suppl.  727] ;  Adams  v.  Mey- 
rose,  7  Fed.  208,  2  McCrary  360;  Woodworth 
v.  Weed,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,022,  1  Blatchf. 
165,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  108;  Ashworth  v.  Roberts, 
45  Ch.  D.  623,  60  L.  J.  Ch.  27,  63  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.    S.    160,   39    Wkly.   Rep.    170;    Haddan  v. 
Smith,  11  Jur.  959,  17  L.  J.  Ch.  43,  16  Sim. 
42,    39    Eng.    Ch.    42,    60    Eng.    Reprint   788. 
And  see   Eclipse   Bicycle   Co.  v.    Farrow,   23 
App.  Cas.    (D.  C. )    411    [reversed  in  part  in 
199  U.  S.  581,  26  S.  Ct.  150,  50  L.  ed.  317]. 

Discovery,  injunction,  and  account  see  Ball 
Glove  Fastening  Co.  v.  Ball,  etc.,  Fastener 
Co.,  36  Fed.  309;  McKay  v.  Smith,  29  Fed. 
295  [affirmed  in  164  U.  S.  701,  17  S.  Ct.  1001, 
41  L.  ed.  1180]. 

Equity  interferes  only  where  remedy  at 
law  inadequate  see  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Cincinnati  Barbed-Wire  Fence  Co.,  42  Fed. 
675;  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Freeman,  41 
Fed.  410. 

64.  Peck  v.  Bacon,  18  Conn.  377;   Bull  v. 
Pratt,  1   Conn.  342;   Rhodes  v.  Ashurst,   176 
111.  351,  52  N.  E.  118;  Havana  Press  Drill  Co. 
V.    Ashurst,    148    111.    115,    35    N.    E.    873; 
Illinois  Watch  Case  Co.  v.  Ecaubert,  75  111. 
App.    418;    Hunt   v.    Hoover,    24    Iowa    231; 
Binney  v.  Annan,   107  Mass.  94,  9  Am.  Rep. 
10;    Continental   Store  Service   Co.  v.   Clark, 
100  N.  Y.  365,  3  N.  E.  335;  Snow  v.  Judson, 
38  Barb.   (N.  Y.)  210;  Darst  v.  Brockway,  11 
Ohio  462;   Standard  Combustion  Co.  v.  Farr, 
9  Ohio  Dec.    (Reprint)    509,  14  Cine.  L.  Bui. 
201;   Hubbard  v.  Allen,   123  Pa.  St.   198,   16 
Atl.  772;  Wade  v.  Lawder,  165  U.  S.  624,  17 
S.  Ct.  425,  41  L.  ed.  851 ;  Marsh  v.  Nichols, 
140  U.  S.  344,  11  S.  Ct.  798,  35  L.  ed.  413; 
Walter  A.  Wood  Mowing,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Skinner,    139   U.    S.    293,    11    S.    Ct.    528,   35 
L.  ed.   193;   Felix  v.  Scharnweber,   125  U.  S. 
54,   8  S.   Ct.   759,  31   L.   ed.   687;    Dale  Tile 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hyatt,  125  U.  S.  46,  8  S.  Ct.  756, 
31    L.   ed.   683:    Albright  v.  Teas,   106   U.   S. 
613,   1  S.  Ct.  550,  27  L.  ed.  295;   Wilson  v. 
Sandford,  10  How.   (U.  S.)   99,  13  L.  ed.  344; 
Blanchard  1?.  Sprague,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,516, 
1  Cliff.  288;  Goodyear  v.  Day,   10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   5,568,    1    Blatchf.    565,    Fish.    Pat.    Rep. 
385. 

65.  Specific  performance  see  Manvel  v. 
Holdredge,  45  N.  Y.  151;  Maugham  v.  Parkes 
Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  69  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  609, 
74  N.  "Y.  Suppl.  689 ;  Leicester,  etc.,  Mills  Co. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     967 


apply.66     State  courts  have  jurisdiction  where  there  is  no  question  of  infringe- 
ment or  validity  of  the  patents.67 

XII.  REGULATION  OF  DEALINGS  IN  PATENT  RIGHTS  AND  PATENTED  ARTICLES. 

A.  By  Congress — 1.  FAILURE  TO  MARK  PATENTED  ARTICLES.  Patentees  are 
required  to  give  notice  that  their  articles  are  patented  by  placing  a  notice  to  that 
effect  upon  the  articles  or  upon  the  package  containing  them.68  In  the  absence 


V.  Macon  Knitting  Co.,  116  Fed.  196,  53 
C.  C.  A.  621;  Foster  v.  Goldschmidt,  21  Fed. 
70;  Wood  v.  Wells,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,967, 
6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  382. 

When  specific  performance  refused  see 
Kennedy  v.  Hazelton,  128  U.  S.  667,  9  S.  Ct. 
202,  32  L.  ed.  576. 

Suit  to  annul  see  Backus  Portable  Steam 
Heater  Co.  v.  Simonds,  2  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
290;  American  Street  Car  Advertising  Co.  v. 
Jones,  122  Fed.  803  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  142  Fed.  974,  74  C.  C.  A.  236]  ; 
Patton  v.  Glatz,  56  Fed.  367. 

Injunction  granted  see  Ball,  etc.,  Fastener 
Co.  v.  Patent  Button  Co.,  136  Fed.  272; 
Waterman  v.  Shipman,  55  Fed.  982,  5  C.  C.  A. 
371;  Goddard  v.  Wilde,  17  Fed.  845;  Day  v. 
Hartshorn,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,683,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  32;  Singer  Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Union 
Button-Hole,  etc.,  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,904, 
6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  480,  Holmes  253,  4  Off.  Gaz. 
553;  Wilson  v.  Sherman,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,833,  1  Blatchf.  536,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  361. 

Injunction  refused  see  Henderson  v.  Dough- 
erty, 95  N.  Y.  App.  Div.  346,  88  N.  Y.  Suppl. 
665;  Brunner  v.  Kaempfer,  2  N.  Y.  App.  Div. 
177,  37  N.  Y.  Suppl.  700;  Young  Reversible 
Lock-Nut  Co.  t?.  Young  Lock-Nut  Co.,  66  Fed. 
563;  Adams,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Westlake,  53 
Fed.  588;  Pope  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Johnson,  40  Fed. 
584 ;  Aapinwall  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gill,  32  Fed.  702 ; 
Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cincinnati 
Barbed-Wire  Fence  Co.,  22  Fed.  712;  Baker 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  18  Fed. 
172,  5  McCrary  504;  Crowell  v.  Parmenter,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,446,  3  Ban.  &  A.  480,  18  Off. 
Gaz.  360;  Florence  Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v. 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,884,  8 
Blatchf.  113,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  329;  Smith 
v.  Cummings,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,034,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  152;  Wilson  v.  Sherman,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,833,  1  Blatchf.  536,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  361.  Where  there  is  an  adequate  remedy 
at  law  equity  will  not  interfere.  Crandall  v. 
Piano  Mfg.  Co.,  24  Fed.  738;  Perkins  v. 
Hendryx,  23  Fed.  418;  Baker  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  supra. 

66.  Parties  see  Backus  Portable  Steam 
Heater  Co.  v.  Simonds,  2  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
290;  Rogers  v.  Riessner,  30  Fed.  525; 
Florence  Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Singer  Mfg.  Co., 
9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,884,  8  Blatchf.  113,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  329. 

Pleading  see  Ralya  v.  Atkins,  157  Ind.  331, 
61  N.  E.  726;  Torrent  v.  Rodgers,  39  Mich. 
85;  Dalzell  v.  Fahy's  Watch  Case  Co.,  138 
N.  Y.  285,  33  N.  E.  1071;  Marsh  v.  Dodge,  5 
Lans.  (N.  Y.)  541;  Smith  v.  Standard  Laun- 
dry Mach.  Co.,  11  Daly  (N.  Y.)  154;  Wilcox, 
etc.,  Sewing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Himes,  21  N.  Y. 
Suppl.  760 ;  Dancel  v.  .United  Shoe  Mach.  Co., 


120  Fed.  839;  White  v.  Lee,  4  Fed.  916: 
Theberath  v.  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  143. 
Evidence  see  Brusie  v.  Peck,  135  N.  Y.  622, 
32  N.  E.  76;  Marsh  v.  Dodge,  5  Lans.  (N.  Y.) 
541;  Hubbard  v.  Allen,  123  Pa.  St.  198,  16 
Atl.  772;  St.  Paul  Plow-Works  v.  Starling, 
140  U.  S.  184,  11  S.  Ct.  803,  35  L.  ed.  404; 
Rogers  v.  Riessner,  34  Fed.  270. 

67.  Rhodes    v.    Ashurst,    176    111.    351,    52 
N.  E.  118;  Illinois  Watch  Case  Co.  v.  Ecau- 
bert,  75   111.   App.   418    [affirmed  in   177   111. 
587,   52   N.   E.    861];    Standard   Combustion 
Co.  V.   Farr,  9  Ohio  Dec.    (Reprint)    509,   14 
Cine.    L.   Bui.   201.     See  also   supra,   XI,   B, 
1,  e. 

68.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4900   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3388]. 

Sufficiency  of  notice  see  Dunlap  v.  Scho- 
field,  152  U.  S.  244,  14  S.  Ct.  576,  38  L.  ed. 
426;  Sessions  V.  Romadka,  145  U.  S.  29,  12 
S.  Ct.  799,  36  L.  ed.  609;  Inman  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Beach,  71  Fed.  420,  18  C.  C.  A.  165. 

Marking  is  legal  notice  to  all.  Hogg  v. 
Gimbel,  94  Fed.  518. 

The  article  and  not  merely  the  package 
must  be  marked  where  possible.  Smith  v. 
Walton,  51  Fed.  17;  Sessions  v.  Romadka,  21 
Fed.  124. 

Particular  part  of  article  for  notice  is  im- 
material.—  Dade  v.  Boorum,  etc.,  Co.,  121 
Fed.  135. 

Patented  processes  are  not  within  the  re- 
quirement. U.  S.  Mitis  Co.  v.  Midvale  Steel 
Co.,  135  Fed.  103;  U.  S.  Mitis  Co.  v.  Car- 
negie Steel  Co.,  89  Fed.  206  [affirmed  in  90 
Fed.  829,  33  C.  C.  A.  387]. 

Where  patentee  has  not  made  and  sold 
articles  under  his  patent  the  requirement  does 
not  apply.  Ewart  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Baldwin  Cycle- 
Chain  Co.,  91  Fed.  262;  Campbell  v.  New 
York,  81  Fed.  182. 

Date.— Notice  must  include  date.  Traver 
v.  Brown,  62  Fed.  933  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  70  Fed.  810,  17  C.  C.  A.  424]; 
Hawley  v.  Bagley,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,248. 

Excuse  for  not  marking  is  immaterial. 
Putnam  t.  Sudhoff,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,483, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  198. 

Burden  of  proof. —  The  burden  is  on  de- 
fendant to  show  absence  of  mark.  Providence 
Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.)  788, 
19  L.  ed.  566;  U.  S.  Printing  Co.  i;.  American 
Playing-Card  Co.,  70  Fed.  50;  Schofield  v. 
Dunlop,  42  Fed.  323;  Goodyear  v.  Allyn,  10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,555,  6  Blatchf.  33,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  374.  Contra,  Matthews,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  National  Brass,  etc.,  Works,  71  Fed. 
518;  National  Co.  V.  Belcher,  68  Fed.  665 
[modified  in  71  Fed.  876,  18  C.  C.  A.  375]. 

Complainant  must  allege  marking  see 
Sprague  v.  Bramhall-Deane  Co.,  133  Fed.  738. 

[XII,  A,  1] 


968     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


of  such  notice  on  the  article  no  damages  can  be  collected  except  where  the  infringer 
continues  after  actual  notice.69 

2.  MARKING   UNPATENTED   ARTICLE.      Parties   are   prohibited   by  statute  from 
marking  articles  for  which  they  have  not  obtained  a  patent  with  any  mark  indi- 
cating  that   they   are   patented,70  and   are    prohibited    from    marking    articles 
patented  by  another  with  any  mark  in  imitation  of  the  name  or  marks  of  the 
real  patentee.71 

3.  PENALTIES  —  a.  In  General.     For  such  wrongful  marking  of  articles  the 
guilty  party  is  liable  to  a  penalty  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  with  costs 
for  every  offense,  one  half  of  such  penalty  going  to  the  party  who  shall  sue  for 
the  same  and  the  other  to  the  United  States.72 


Canada. —  Must  mark  subject  to  penalty  of 
one  hundred  dollars.  St.  38  Viet.  c.  14,  §  3. 

69.  Must  prove  actual  notice. —  Dunlap  v. 
Schofield,    152   U.  S.  244,    14   S.  Ct.   576,  38 
L.  ed.  426 ;  Pairpoint  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Eldridge  Co., 
71  Fed.  307. 

Sufficiency  of  actual  notice  see  U.  S.  Mitis 
Co.  v.  Midvale  Steel  Co.,  135  Fed.  103;  Jen- 
nings v.  Rogers  Silver  Plate  Co.,  96  Fed.  340 ; 
Thompson  v.  N.  T.  Bushnell  Co.,  96  Fed.  238, 
37  C.  C.  A.  456 ;  Ryan  v.  Newark  Spring  Mat- 
tress Co.,  96  Fed.  100;  New  York  Pharmical 
Assoc.  v.  Tilden,  14  Fed.  740,  21  Blatchf. 
190. 

Recovery  limited  to  infringement  after  no- 
tice see  Allen  v.  Deacon,  21  Fed.  122;  Put- 
nam v.  Sudhoff,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,483,  1 
Ban.  &  A.  198. 

When  some  articles  marked  and  some  not 
marked  only  nominal  damages  are  recover- 
able. B.  B.  Hill  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stewart,  116 
Fed.  927. 

Right  to  injunction. — Absence  of  notice  af- 
fects damages  only  and  not  right  to  injunc- 
tion. McDowell  v.  Kurtz,  77  Fed.  206,  23 
C.  C.  A.  119;  Horn  v.  Bergner,  68  Fed.  428 
[affirmed  in  72  Fed.  687]  ;  Anderson  v.  Mon- 
roe, 55  Fed.  398  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  58  Fed.  398,  7  C.  C.  A.  272] ;  Goodyear  v. 
Allyn,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,555,  6  Blatchf. 
33,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  374. 

70.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4901    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3388]. 

Intent  to  deceive  is  necessary  in  order  to 
create  offense.  Bowman  v.  Read,  2  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  591,  17  L.  ed.  812;  A.  B.  Dick  Co.  v. 
Fuerth,  57  Fed.  834;  Hotchkiss  v.  Samuel 
Cupples  Wooden- Ware  Co.,  53  Fed.  1018; 
Lawrence  v.  Holmes,  45  Fed.  357 ;  Tompkins 
v.  Butterfield,  25  Fed.  556 ;  Nichols  v.  Newell, 
18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,245,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
647;  Stephens  v.  Caldwell,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,367;  Walker  v.  Hawxhurst,  29  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,071,  5  Blatchf.  494. 

Marking  after  application  but  before  pay- 
ment may  or  may  not  constitute  offense  ac- 
cording to  intent  Lauferty  v.  Wheeler,  11 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  194;  Nichols  v.  Newell,  18  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,245,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  647; 
Stephens  v.  Caldwell,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,367. 

Expiration  of  patent  on  device  does  not 
create  offense.  Wilson  v.  Singer  Mfg.  Co.,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,836,  4  Ban.  &  A.  637,  9 
Biss.  173,  16  Off.  Gaz.  1091,  9  N.  Y.  Wkly. 
Dig.  338  [affirmed  in  12  Fed.  57,  11  Biss. 
298]. 

[XII.  A,  1] 


Actual  sale  of  article  is  not  necessary. 
Nichols  v.  Newell,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,245,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  647. 

Whether  the  things  marked  are  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  be  capable  of  being  patented 
bears  simply  upon  intent  to  deceive.  Winne 
v.  Snow,  19  Fed.  507;  Oliphant  v.  Salem 
Flouring  Mills  Co.,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,486,  3 
Ban.  &  A.  256,  5  Sawy.  128;  U.  S.  v.  Morris, 
26  Fed.  Cas.  No.  15,814,  2  Bond  23,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  72. 

Marking  "Patent  Applied  For"  is  permis- 
sible. A.  B.  Dick  Co.  v.  Fuerth,  57  Fed.  834; 
Schwebel  v.  Bothe,  40  Fed.  478. 

71.  U.  S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4901    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3388]. 

Article  must  be  covered  by  the  patent  see 
Russell  v.  Newark  Mach.  Co.,  55  Fed.  297; 
French  v.  Foley,  11  Fed.  801. 

Injunction. —  Patentee  may  obtain  injunc- 
tion. Stimpson  Computing  Scale  Co.  v. 
W.  F.  Stimpson  Co.,  104  Fed.  893,  44  C.  C.  A. 
241;  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Haish,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,217,  4  Ban.  &  A.  571,  9  Biss. 
141,  18  Off.  Gaz.  465. 

Invalidity  of  the  patent  is  no  defense  for 
marking  without  patentee's  consent.  Myers 
v.  Baker,  3  H.  &  N.  802,  28  L.  J.  Exch.  90,  7 
Wkly.  Rep.  66. 

72.  U.   S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4901    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3388]. 

Canada. —  Penalty  two  hundred  dollars  or 
imprisonment  for  six  months  or  both.  St.  35 
Viet.  c.  26,  §  50. 

Offense  committed  see  Nichols  v.  Newell,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,245,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  647; 
Oliphant  v.  Salem  Flouring  Co.,  18  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,486,  3  Ban.  &  A.  256,  5  Sawy.  128. 

Offense  not  committed  see  Russell  v.  New- 
ark Mach.  Co.,  55  Fed.  297 ;  Wilson  v.  Singer 
Mfg.  Co.,  12  Fed.  57,  11  Biss.  298. 

The  amount  of  the  penalty  is  one  hundred 
dollars  and  no  more.  Stimpson  v.  Pond,  23 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,455,  2  Curt.  502.  Compare 
Nichols  v.  Newell,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,245,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  647. 

Single  offense  may  include  marking  of  a 
number  of  articles  at  the  same  time.  Hoyt 
t?.  Computing  Scale  Co.,  96  Fed.  250;  Hotch- 
kiss v.  Samuel  Cupples  Wooden- Ware  Co.,  53 
Fed.  1018. 

Where  the  patentee  has  failed  to  mark  his 
own  articles  "  patented  "  it  is  held  that  the 
patentee  cannot  recover  the  penalty.  Smith 
v.  Walton,  56  Fed.  499;  Smith  v.  Walton, 
51  Fed.  17. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     969 


b.  Infringement  of  Design  Patents.  One  who  knowingly  infringes  a  design 
patent  is  liable  in  the  amount  of  at  least  two  hundred  and  hfty  dollars  and  if  his 
profits  are  greater  he  is  liable  for  the  excess.73  The  owner  of  the  patent  may 
recover  the  amount  at  law  or  in  equity.74 

B.  By  States.  The  owner  of  a  patent  himself  cannot  make  and  sell  his 
patented  articles  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  state  prescribed  for  the  general 
welfare.75  The  right  conferred  by  statute  to  make,  use,  and  vend  his  invention 
throughout  the  United  States  and  the  territories  thereof  is  not  granted  or  secured 
without  reference  to  the  general  powers  which  the  several  states  of  the  Union 
unquestionably  possess  over  their  purely  domestic  affairs,  whether  of  internal  com- 
merce or  police.76  The  manufacture  and  sale  of  patented  articles  is  subject  to 
state  legislation  enacted  in  pursuance  of  the  police  power  inherent  in  the  state,77 
to  the  taxing  power  of  the  states,78  if  there  is  no  discrimination  in  such  taxation 
as  between  the  patented  article  and  the  sale  of  other  similar  articles  in  the  state,79 
and  a  license-fee  can  be  required  for  selling  in  the  state  patented  articles.80  With 
respect  to  the  power  of  states  to  regulate  the  transfer  or  sale  of  patent  rights 
themselves,  there  is  a  very  considerable  conflict  of  authority.  In  a  large  number 


The  informer,  although  without  interest, 
brings  suit  in  his  own  name  and  not  in  the 
name  of  the  United  States.  Winne  v.  Snow, 
19  Fed.  507;  U.  S.  v.  Morris,  26  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  15,814,  2  Bond  23,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  72. 

Where  suit  brought. — Suits  must  be  brought 
in  the  district  where  offense  committed. 
Winne  v.  Snow,  19  Fed.  507;  Pentlarge  v. 
Kirby,  19  Fed.  501. 

Allegations. —  Essential  facts  must  be  al- 
leged, but  not  necessarily  the  day  stamping 
was  done.  Fish  v.  Manning.  31  Fed.  340. 

Intent  is  a  question  for  the  jury.  Walker 
v.  Hawxhurst,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,071,  5 
Blatchf.  494. 

Statute  strictly  construed  see  Pentlarge  v. 
Kirby,  19  Fed.  501. 

Proofs  strictly  construed  see  Hawloetz  v. 
Kass,  25  Fed.  765  [affirmed  in  136  U.  S.  638, 
10  S.  Ct.  1068,  34  L.  ed.  549];  Hawley  v. 
Bagley,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,248. 

73.  Act  Feb.  4,   1887,   24  U.   S.  St.  at  L. 
387  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3398];  Frank 
v.  Geiger,   121  Fed.   126. 

Infringement  must  be  wilful  after  notice. 
—  See  Fuller  v.  Field,  82  Fed.  813,  27  C.  C.  A. 
165;  Monroe  v.  Anderson,  58  Fed.  398,  7 
C.  C.  A.  272. 

Infringement  of  several  claims  in  one  pat- 
ent constitutes  only  one  offense.  Gimbel  v. 
Hogg,  97  Fed.  791,  38  C.  C.  A.  419. 

Sufficiency .  of  notice. —  Marking  patented 
articles  is  not  such  notice  as  will  make  in- 
fringer's  act  one  after  notice.  Gimbel  v. 
Hogg,  97  Fed.  791,  38  C.  C.  A.  419. 

74.  See  infra,  XIII,  C,  12,  a,    (m). 

75.  Livingston    v.    Van    Ingen,    9    Johns. 
(N.    Y.)     507;    Jordan    v.    Dayton,    4    Ohio 

294;  Bement  i?.  National  Harrow  Co.,  186 
U.  S.  70,  22  S.  Ct.  747,  46  L.  ed.  1058;  Web- 
ber v.  Virginia,  103  U.  S.  344,  20  L.  ed.  565  ; 
Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  501,  24  L.  ed. 
1115;  Heaton-Peninsular  Button-Fastener  Co. 
v.  Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25 
C.  C.  A.  267,  35  L.'  R.  A.  728,  78  Off.  Gaz. 
171 ;  In  re  Brosnahan,  18  Fed.  62,  4  McCrary  1. 
Sale  of  patent  rights  and  patented  articles 
distinguished. —  There  is  a  manifest  distinc- 


tion between  the  right  of  property  in  the 
patent,  which  carries  with  it  the  power  on 
the  part  of  the  patentee  to  assign  it,  and  the 
right  to  sell  the  property  resulting  from  the 
invention  or  patent.  When  the  fruits  of  the 
invention  or  the  article  made  by  reason  of 
the  application  of  the  principle  discovered  is 
attempted  to  be  sold  or  used  within  the  ju- 
risdiction of  a  state,  it  is  subject  to  its  laws, 
like  other  property.  Patterson  v.  Com.,  11 
Bush  (Ky.)  311,  21  Am.  Rep.  220  [affirmed 
in  97  U.  S.  501,  24  L.  ed.  1115]. 

76.  Patterson  v.  Kentucky,  97  U.  S.  501,  24 
L.  ed.  1115. 

77.  In  re  Opinion  of  Justices,   193  Mass. 
605,  81  N.  E.   142;   Webber  v.  Virginia,   103 
U.  S.  344,  347,  26  L.  ed.  565  (in  which  it  was 
said :     "  Congress    never    intended    that    the 
patent  laws  should  displace  the  police  powers 
of   the   States,   meaning  by   that   term  those 
powers    by    which    the    health,    good    order, 
peace,  and  general  welfare  of  the  community 
are  promoted.     Whatever  rights  are  secured 
to  inventors  must  be  enjoyed  in  subordination 
to  this  general  authority  of  the  State  over 
all  property  within  its   limits  " )  ;    Patterson 
v.  Kentucky,  97    U.  S.  501,  24  L.  ed.   1115; 
Heaton-Peninsular     Button-Fastener     Co.     V. 
Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25  C.  C.  A. 
267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728,  78  Off.  Gaz.  171. 

78.  Palmer  v.   State,   39  Ohio  St.  236,  48 
Am.  Rep.  429 ;  State  v.  Bell  Tel.  Co.,  36  Ohio 
St.  296,   38    Am.   Rep.  583;    Webber  v.  Vir- 
ginia,  103  U.  S.  344,  26  L.   ed.  565;   In  re 
Sheffield,  64  Fed.  833. 

79.  Palmer  v.  State,   39  Ohio  St.  236,  48 
Am.  Rep.  429.     To  the  same  effect  see  In  re 
Sheffield,  64  Fed.  833. 

A  law  imposing  a  fee  only  in  case  the  arti- 
cles are  made  outside  of  the  state  is  invalid 
as  subjecting  them  to  a  discriminating  regu- 
lation or  burden.  Webber  v.  Virginia,  103 
U.  S.  344,  26  L.  ed.  565. 

80.  People   v.    Russell,    49    Mich.    617,    14 
N.  W.  568,  43  Am.  Rep.  478,  25  Off.  Gaz.  504 ; 
Webber  v.  Virginia,  103  U.  S.  344,  26  L.  ed. 
565.     Contra,  State  v.  Butler,  3  Lea   (Tenn.), 
222. 

[XII,  B] 


970     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


of  cases,  both  state  and  federal,  the  right  has  been  upheld,81  while  in  others,  both 
state  and  federal,  the  constitutionality  of  such  regulations  has  been  denied,82  and 
it  has  been  held  that  a  license-tax  cannot  be  imposed  upon  the  right  to  vend 
patent  rights.83  In  a  very  recent  decision  of  the  United  States  supreme  court, 
however,  it  was  held  that  a  "  state  has  the  power,  certainly  until  congress  legis- 
lates upon  the  subject,  with  regard  to  the  provision  which  shall  accompany  the 
sale  or  assignment  of  rights  arising  under  a  patent,  to  make  reasonable  regulations 
concerning  the  subject,  calculated  to  protect  its  citizens  from  fraud,"  and  a  state 
law  providing  that  before  barter  or  sale  of  patent  rights  an  authenticated  copy  of 
the  letters  patent  and  the  authority  of  the  vendor  to  sell  the  right  patented  shall 
be  filed  in  the  office  of  the  county  within  which  the  rights  were  sold  was  sustained 
as  a  reasonable  regulation.84  And  in  another  recent  decision  of  that  court  the 
validity  of  a  state  statute  making  void  a  note  given  for  a  patent,  if  the  note  fails 
to  show  on  its  face  for  what  it  was  given,  was  upheld.85 


81.  Arkansas. —  Tilson  v.  Gatling,  60  Ark. 
114,  29  S.  W.  35. 

Indiana. —  Sandage  v.  Studabaker  Bros. 
Mfg.  Co.,  142  Ind.  148,  41  N.  E.  380,  51  Am. 
St.  Kep.  165,  34  L.  R.  A.  363;  Mayfield  v. 
Sears,  133  Ind.  86,  32  N.  E.  816;  Hankey  v. 
Downey,  116  Ind.  118,  18  N.  E.  271,  1  L.  R.  A. 
447;  New  v.  Walker,  108  Ind.  365,  9  N.  E. 
386,  58  Am.  Rep.  40;  Brechbill  v.  Randall, 
102  Ind.  528,  1  N.  E.  362,  52  Am.  Rep.  695 
[overruling  Grover,  etc.,  Sewing  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Butler,  53  Ind.  454,  21  Am.  Rep.  200]. 
Contra,  Helm  v.  Huntington  First  Nat.  Bank, 
43  Ind.  167,  13  Am.  Rep.  395. 

Kansas. —  Nyhart  v.  Kubach,  76  Kan.  154, 
90  Pac.  796;  Allen  v.  Riley,  71  Kan.  378,  80 
Pac.  952,  114  Am.  St.  Rep.  481  [affirmed  in 
203  U.  S.  347,  27  S.  Ct.  95,  51  L.  ed.  216] ; 
Mason  v.  McLeod,  57  Kan.  105,  45  Pac.  76, 
57  Am.  St.  Rep.  327,  41  L.  R.  A.  548. 

Ohio.—  Tod  v.  Wick,  36  Ohio  St.  370. 

Pennsylvania. —  Graham's  Estate,  14  Phila. 
280. 

United  States. —  Reeves  v.  Corning,  51 
Fed.  774.  And  see  cases  cited  infra,  this 
note. 

Instances. —  A  state  may  require  that  notes 
given  for  patent  rights  be  marked  to  indicate 
the  fact.  Pinney  v.  Concordia  First  Nat. 
Bank,  68  Kan.  223,  75  Pac.  119;  Mason  v. 
McLeod,  57  Kan.  105,  45  Pac.  76,  57  Am.  St. 
Rep.  327,  41  L.  R.  A.  548;  Rumbley  V.  Hall, 
107  Ky.  349,  54  S.  W.  4,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1071 ; 
Nunn*  v.  Citizens'  Bank,  107  Ky.  262,  53 
S.  W.  665,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  961;  Bohon  v. 
Brown,  101  Ky.  354,  41  S.  W.  273,  19  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  540,  72  Am.  St.  Rep.  420,  38  L.  R.  A. 
503;  Herdic  v.  Roessler,  39  Hun  (N.  Y.)  198 
[affirmed  in  109  N.  Y.  127,  16  N.  E.  198]; 
Shires  v.  Com.,  120  Pa.  St.  368,  14  Atl.  251; 
Haskell  v.  Jones,  86  Pa.  St.  173;  State  v. 
Cook,  107  Tenn.  499,  64  S.  W.  720,  62  L.  R.  A. 
174.  So  the  state  may  require  the  filing  of  a 
copy  of  the  patent  and  an  affidavit  as  to  its 
genuineness.  New  v.  Walker,  108  Ind.  365, 
9  N.  E.  386,  58  Am.  Rep.  40;  Brechbill  v. 
Randall,  102  Ind.  528,  1  N.  E.  362,  52  Am. 
Rep.  695. 

What  constitutes  sale  of  patent  right.— 
A  contract  by  which  the  owner  of  a  patent 
right  conveys  to  another  the  exclusive  right 
to  sell  the  patented  article  within  certain 

[XII,  B] 


prescribed  territory  for  a  term  of  years  is  a 
sale  of  such  an  interest  in  a  patent  right  as 
brings  the  transaction  within  Gen.  St.  (1901) 
§§  4356-4358,  relating  to  the  registration  and 
sale  of  patent  rights,  and  prescribing  a  pen- 
alty for  the  violation  thereof.  Nyhart  v. 
Kubach,  76  Kan.  154,  90  Pac.  796.  A  terri- 
torial lease  and  appointment  of  agency  giving 
the  party  of  the  second  part  six  sample  ma- 
chines and  the  agency  for  the  sale  of  the 
same  for  a  term  of  years,  the  company  agree- 
ing to  furnish  all  machines  ordered  by  the 
agent  at  a  certain  fixed  price,  is  a  contract 
for  the  sale  of  a  patent  right  within  Gen.  St. 
(1901)  §§  4356-4358.  Nyhart  v.  Kubach, 
supra. 

82.  Illinois.—  Hollida  v.  Hunt,  70  111.  109, 
22  Am.  Rep.  63. 

Michigan. —  People  v.  Russell,  49  Mich.  617, 

14  N.  W.  568,  43  Am.  Rep.  478,  25  Off.  Gaz. 
504;  Cransen  v.  Smith,  37  Mich.  309,  26  Am. 
Rep.  514. 

Minnesota. —  Crittenden  v.  White,  23  Minn. 
24,  23  Am.  Rep.  676. 

Nebraska.—  Wilch  v.  Phelps,  14  Nebr.  134, 

15  N.  W.  361. 

Wisconsin. —  State  v.  Lockwood,  43  Wls. 
403. 

United  States. —  Rubber  Tire  Wheel  Co.  v. 
Milwaukee  Rubber  Works  Co.,  154  Fed.  358, 
83  C.  C.  A.  336;  Ozan  Lumber  Co.  v.  Union 
County  Nat.  Bank,  145  Fed.  344,  76  C.  C.  A. 
218;  U.  S.  Consol.  Seeded  B.aisin  Co.  v.  Grif- 
fin, etc.,  Co.,  126  Fed.  364,  61  C.  C.  A.  334; 
Columbia  Wire  Co.  v.  Freeman  Wire  Co.,  71 
Fed.  302;  Castle  v.  Hutchinson,  25  Fed.  394; 
Ex  p.  Robinson,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,932,  2 
Biss.  309,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  186;  Woollen  v. 
Banker,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,030,  2  Flipp. 
33,  5  Reporter  259,  17  Alb.  L.  J.  '(N.  Y.) 
72. 

83.  Com.  v.  Petty,  96  Ky.  452,  29   S.  W. 
291,   16   Ky.  L.   Rep.  488,   29  L.  R.  A.   786; 
People  v.  Russell,  49  Mich.  617,  14  N.  W.  568, 
43   Am.   Rep.   478,   25   Off.    Gaz.   504;    In  re 
Sheffield,  64  Fed.  833. 

84.  Allen  v.  Riley,  203  U.  S.  347,  27  S.  Ct. 
95,  51  L.  ed.  216   [affirming  71  Kan.  378,  80 
Pac.  952,  114  Am.  St.  Rep.  481]. 

85.  Woods  v.  Carl,  203  U.  S.  358,  27  S.  Ct. 
99,  51  L.  ed.  219   [affirming  75  Ark.  328,  87 
S.   W.   621]. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     9T1 


XIII.  INFRINGEMENT.86 

A.  What  Constitutes  —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  The  infringement  of  a  patent  is  the 
unauthorized  making,  using,  or  selling  of  the  invention  daring  the  life  of  the 
patent.87  The  use  of  what  was  old  prior  to  the  patentee's  invention  will  not 
infringe.88  The  patent  must  be  a  valid  one,  otherwise  there  is  no  basis  for  a  suit 
for  infringement.89 


86.  Enjoining  libel   or  slander   on   patent 
see  INJUNCTIONS,  22  Cyc.  901. 

Use  by  the  government  see  supra,  I,  B,  4. 

87.  See  cases  cited  infra,  this  note. 

Authorization  by  owner. —  There  is  no  in- 
fringement where  the  manufacture,  use,  or 
sale  was  authorized  by  the  owner  of  the 
patent.  Holmes  v.  Kirkpatrick,  133  Fed.  232, 
60  C.  C.  A.  286;  Hanifen  v.  Lupton,  101  Fed. 
462,  41  C.  C.  A.  462;  American  Graphophone 
Co.  v.  Talking-Mach.  Co.,  98  Fed.  729,  39 
C.  C.  A.  245;  Pelzer  v.  Binghamton,  95  Fed. 
823,  37  C.  C.  A.  288;  Sprague  Electric  R., 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  95  Fed. 
821,  37  C.  C.  A.  286;  Blakey  v.  National  Mfg. 
Co.,  95  Fed.  136,  37  C.  C.  A.  27;  Dibble  v. 
Augur,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,879,  7  Blatch.  86; 
Jordan  v.  Dobson,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,519,  2 
Abb.  398,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  232,  7  Phila. 
(Pa.)  533. 

The  giving  away  of  infringing  articles  as 
premiums  with  other  goods  sold  is  in  effect  a 
sale,  and  constitutes  infringement.  Benbow- 
Brammer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Heffron-Tanner  Co.,  144 
Fed.  429. 

Equitable  owner  of  the  patent  is  not  an 
unauthorized  user.  Clmn  v.  Brewer,  5  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,909,  2  Curt.  506. 

Licensee  may  infringe  by  violating  condi- 
tions. Hobbie  v.  Smith,  27  Fed.  656. 

Refusal  of  patentee  to  furnish  device  does 
not  authorize  infringement.  Masseth  v.  Rei- 
ber,  59  Fed.  614. 

Importation. —  Importation  of  the  invention 
is  infringement.  Boesch  v.  Graff,  133  U.  S. 
697,  10  S.  Ct.  378,  33  L.  ed.  787  [reversing 
33  Fed.  279,  13  Sawy.  17] ;  Dickerson  v.  Tin- 
ling,  84  Fed.  192,  28  C.  C.  A.  139 ;  Dickerson 
v.  Matheson,  57  Fed.  524,  6  C.  C.  A.  466; 
Featherstone  v.  Ormonde  Cycle  Co.,  53  Fed. 
110;  Neilson  v.  Betts,  L.  R.  5  H.  L.  1,  40 
L.  J.  Ch.  317,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  1121;  Von  Hey- 
den  v.  Neustadt,  14  Ch.  D.  230,  50  L.  J.  Ch. 
126,  42  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  300,  28  Wkly.  Rep. 
496;  Emslie  v.  Boursier,  L.  R.  9  Eq.  217,  39 
L.  J.  Ch.  328,  18  Wkly.  Rep.  665.  Where 
patentee  or  his  agent  sells  articles  abroad 
they  may  be  imported  without  infringement. 
Holiday  v.  Mattheson,  24  Fed.  185,  23 
Blatchf.  239. 

One  who  purchases  abroad  from  the  pat- 
entee and  imports  is  not  an  infringer.  Betts 
v.  Willmott,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  239,  25  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  188,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  369;  Saccharin  Corp. 
v.  Reitmeyer,  [1900]  2  Ch.  659,  69  L.  J.  Ch. 
761,  83  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  397,  49  Wkly.  Rep. 
iyy  * 

Shipping  parts  to  foreign  country  for  use 
there  in  making  the  invention  is  no  infringe- 
ment. Bullock  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Westing- 


house  Electric,  etc.,  Co.,  129  Fed.  105,  63 
C.  C.  A.  607. 

Use  on  foreign  vessel  in  port  is  not  in- 
fringement. Brown  v.  Duchesne,  19  How. 
(U.  S.)  183,  15  L.  ed.  595. 

Use  on  United  States  vessel  at  sea  is  in- 
fringement. Gardiner  v.  Howe,  9  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,219,  2  Cliff.  462. 

Use  of  armor  on  United  States  war  vessel 
is  not  infringement.  Heaton  v.  Quintard,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,311,  7  Blatchf.  73. 

Use  pending  application  is  not  infringe- 
ment. Brill  v.  St.  Louis  Car  Co.,  80  Fed.  909. 

Selling  article  made  on  patented  machine 
is  not  infringement.  Simpson  v.  Wilson,  4 
How.  (U.  S.)  709,  11  L.  ed.  1169. 

A  mere  agreement  to  buy  infringing  arti- 
cles is  no  infringement.  Keplinger  v.  De 
Young,  10  Wheat.  (U.  S.)  358,  6  L.  ed.  341. 

Use  after  expiration  of  patent  is  not  in- 
fringement. Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v.  Carpen- 
ter, 133  Fed.  238  [affirmed  in  143  Fed.  976, 
75  C.  C.  A.  162]. 

Selling  after  expiration  of  patent  is  not 
infringement.  British  Insulated  Wire  Co.  v. 
Dublin  United  Tramways  Co.,  [1900]  1  Ir, 
287. 

In  Canada  the  purchaser  and  user  of  arti- 
cles made  in  derogation  of  the  patent  is  an 
infringer.  Toronto  Auer  Light  Co.  v.  Col- 
ling, 31  Ont.  18. 

88.  Pope  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gormully,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  144  U.  S.  238,  12  S.  Ct.  641,  36  L.  ed. 
419;  Jones  v.  Morehead,  1  Wall.   (U.  S.)    155, 
17  L.  ed.  662 ;  McCormick  v.  Talcott,  20  How. 
(U.  S.)   402,  15  L.  ed.  930;  WTilson  v.  Town- 
ley  Shingle  Co.,   125   Fed.   491,   60  C.   C.  A. 
327;  Marsh  v.  Quick-Meal  Stove  Co.,  51  Fed. 
203 ;  Challenge  Corn-Planter  Co.  v.  Gearhardt, 
46  Fed.  768 ;  Lee  v.  Upson,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Fed. 
530;   Webster  v.  Ovens,  39  Fed.  388;  Simon 
v.     Neumann,     20     Fed.     196;     Consolidated 
Safety-Valve    Co.    v.    Kunkle,    14    Fed.    732; 
Adams,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Wire-Goods 
Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  72,  3  Ban.  &  A.  77,  12 
Off.  Gaz.  940 ;  Byam  V.  Eddy,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,263,    2    Blatchf.    521,    24   Vt.    666;    Rich  v. 
Lippincott,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,758,  2  Fish. 
Pat.    Cas.    1,    1    Pittsb.    (Pa.)    31;    Smith  v. 
Clark,  22   Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,027,  Brunn.  Col. 
Cas.  345 ;  Smith  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,058. 

89.  Johnston  v.  Woodbury,   109   Fed.  567, 
48  C.  C.  A.  550;  Swain  v.  Holyoke  Mach.  Co., 
109    Fed.    154,   48    C.    C.    A.    265;    American 
Ordnance  Co.  v.  Driggs-Seabury  Gun,  etc.,  Co., 
105    Fed.   83,   48   C.    C.    A.    241;    Hoskins   v. 
Matthes,  108  Fed.  404,  47  C.  C.  A.  434;  Goss 
Printing-Press  Co.  v.  Scott,  108  Fed.  253,  47 
C.  C.  A.  302;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co. 

[XIII,  A,  1] 


972     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


2.  MAKING,  USING,  OR  SELLING.     Infringement  may  consist  either  in  making, 
using,  or  selling  the  invention,  or  in  all  three.90 

3.  ARTICLE  MADE  BEFORE  PATENT.     Any  person  who  purchases  of  the  inventor, 
or  with  his  knowledge  and  consent,  constructs  an  article  embodying  the  invention 
prior  to  his  application  for  patent  has  the  right  to  use  and  sell  the  particular 
article  after  a  patent  is  granted.91 

4.  EXPERIMENTAL  USE.92     The  making  of  the  patented  invention  for  amusement 
or  scientific  investigation  with  no  intent  of  using  it  practically  is  not  an  actionable 
infringement;  but  it  is  otherwise  where  the  thing  made  is  sold  or  put  into  actual 
use.93 


v.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  107  Fed.  277,  46 
C.  C.  A.  263 ;  Pelzer  v.  Dale  Co.,  106  Fed.  989, 
46  C.  C.  A.  83;  Dodge  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Collins, 
106  Fed.  935,  46  C.  C.  A.  53;  Solvay  Process 
Co.  v.  Michigan  Alkali  Co.,  90  Fed.  818,  33 
C.  C.  A.  285;  Chuse  v.  Ide,  89  Fed.  491, 
32  C.  C.  A.  260;  Antisdel  v.  Chicago  Hotel 
Cabinet  Co.,  89  Fed.  308,  32  C.  C.  A.  216; 
Kelly  v.  Clow,  89  Fed.  297,  32  C.  C.  A.  205; 
Talbot  v.  Fear,  89  Fed.  197,  32  C.  C.  A. 
186;  Clisby  v.  Reese,  88  Fed.  645,  32 
C.  C.  A.  80;  Eastman  Co.  v.  Getz,  84  Fed. 
458,  28  C.  C.  A.  459;  Soehner  v.  Favorite 
Stove,  etc.,  Co.,  84  Fed.  182,  28  C.  C.  A.  317; 
Dunbar  v.  Eastern  Elevating  Co.,  81  Fed. 
201,  26  C.  C.  A.  330;  Crossley  v.  Duggan,  79 
Fed.  992,  25  C.  C.  A.  681;  Matheson  v.  Camp- 
bell, 78  Fed.  910,  24  C.  C.  A.  384. 

90.  Birdsell  v.  Shaliol,  112  U.  S.  485,  5 
S.  Ct.  244,  28  L.  ed.  768 ;  Tuttle  v.  Matthews, 
28  Fed.  98 ;  Carter  v.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512; 
Haselden  v.  Ogden,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,190,  3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  378. 

Making  without  use  or  sale  is  infrmgement. 
Carter  Crume  Co.  v.  American  Sales  Book  Co., 
124  Fed.  903;  Page  Woven  Wire  Fence  Co.  v. 
Land,  49  Fed.  936;  Ketchum  Harvester  Co.  v. 
Johnson  Harvester  Co.,  8  Fed.  586,  19 
Blatchf.  367;  Bloomer  v.  Gilpin,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,558,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  50;  Jenkins  v. 
Greenwald,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,270,  1  Bond 
126,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  37;  Whittemore  v. 
Cutter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,600,  1  Gall.  429, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  28. 

Use  for  personal  benefit  or  convenience  is 
infringement  without  sale.  Beedle  v.  Bennett, 
122  U.  S.  71,  7  S.  Ct.  1090,  30  L.  ed.  1074; 
United  Nickel  Co.  v.  Central  Pac.  R.  Co.,  36 
Fed.  186;  Andrews  v.  Cross,  8  Fed.  269,  19 
Blatchf.  294. 

A  single  sale  is  an  infringement.  Hutter 
v.  De  Q.  Bottle  Stopper  Co.,  128  Fed.  283,  62 
C.  C.  A.  652. 

Sale  to  agent  of  patentee  is  infringement. 
Chicago  Pneumatic  Tool  Co.  v.  Philadelphia 
Pneumatic  Tool  Co.,  118  Fed.  852. 

Sale  by  sheriff  on  execution  is  not  an  ac- 
tionable infringement.  Sawin  v.  Guild,  21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,391,  1  Gall.  485,  1  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  47. 

Any  use  is  infringement.  Betts  v.  Neilson, 
3  De  G.  J.  &  S.  82,  11  Jur.  N.  S.  679,  *34 
L.  J.  Ch.  537,  12  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  719,  6 
Wkly.  Rep.  221,  13  Wkly.  Rep.  1028,  68  Eng. 
Ch.  63,  46  Eng.  Reprint  569. 

Making  and  offering  for  sale  is  infringe- 
[XIII,  A,  2] 


ment  even  without  actual  sale.  Oxley  v. 
Holden,  8  C.  B.  N.  S.  666,  30  L.  J.  C.  P.  68, 
2  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  464,  8  Wkly.  Rep.  626,  98 
E.  C.  L.  666. 

Making  for  sale  abroad  is  infringement. 
British  Motor  Syndicate  v.  Taylor,  [1901]  1 
Ch.  122,  70  L.  J.  Ch.  21,  83  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
419,  49  Wkly.  Rep.  183;  Goucher  v.  Clay- 
ton, 11  Jur.  N.  S.  462,  13  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
111. 

91.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §   4899    [U.  S. 
Ccmp.    St.     (1901)    p.    3387];    Dable    Grain 
Shovel  Co.  v.  Flint,  137  U.  S.  41,  11  S.  Ct. 
8,  34  L.  ed.  618;  Wade  v.  Metcalfe,  129  U.  S. 
202,  9  S.  Ct.  271,  32  L.  ed.  661  [affirming  16 
Fed.  130]  ;  Kendall  v.  Winsor,  21  How.  (U.  S.) 
322,  16  L.  ed.  165;  McClurg  v.  Kingsland,  1 
How.   (U.  S.)  202,  11  L.  ed.  102;  Campbell  v. 
New  York,  35  Fed.  504,  1  L.  R.  A.  48;  Duffy 
v.  Reynolds,  24  Fed.  855. 

That  the  right  must  be  derived  directly  or 
indirectly  from  the  inventor  see  Pierson  v. 
Eagle  Screw  Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,156,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  268,  3  Story  402. 

An  article  made  or  bought  without  the  in- 
ventor's consent  cannot  be  used.  Kendall  v. 
Winsor,  21  How.  (U.  S.)  322,  16  L.  ed.  105; 
Evans  v.  Weiss,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,572,  1 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  10,  2  Wash.  342;  Hovey  v. 
Stevens,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,745,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  479,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  290. 

Transfer  of  license. —  The  implied  license 
is  not  transferable.  Thomson  v.  Citizens' 
Nat.  Bank,  53  Fed.  250,  3  C.  C.  A.  518. 

Articles  properly  obtained  before  patent 
may  be  used  after  extension.  Paper  Bag 
Mach.  Cases,  105  U.  S.  766,  26  L.  ed.  959; 
Simpson  v.  Wilson,  4  How.  (U.  S.)  709,  11 
L.  ed.  1169;  Wilson  v.  Rousseau,  4  How. 
(U.  S.)  646,  11  L.  ed.  1141. 

Canada.— Pat.  Act,  Rev.  St.  Can.  c.  61,  §  61, 
does  not  authorize  one  who  has,  with  the  full 
consent  of  the  patentee,  manufactured  and 
sold  a  patented  article  for  less  than  a  year 
before  the  issue  of  the  patent,  to  continue 
the  manufacture  after  the  issue  thereof,  but 
merely  permits  him  to  use  and  sell  the  arti- 
cles manufactured  by  him  prior  thereto. 
Fowell  v.  Chown,  25  Ont.  71.  And  see  Victor 
Sporting  Goods  Co.  v.  Harold  A.  Wilson  Co., 
24  Can.  L.  T.  Occ.  Notes  211,  7  Ont.  L.  Rep. 
570,  2  Ont.  Wkly.  Rep.  465,  3  Ont.  Wkly. 
Rep.  496. 

92.  Experiments  and  incomplete  inventions 
as  showing  prior  knowledge  or  use  see  supra, 
III,  C,  4,  c,  e. 

93.  Cimiotti  Unhairing  Co.  v.  Derbeklow, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     973 


5.  KNOWLEDGE   OR   INTENT    OF   iNFRiNGER.94     A  party  is  no  less  an   infringer 
because  he  did  not  intend  to  infringe  or  because  he  did  not  know  of  the  patent.95 
His  lack  of  knowledge  or  intent  can  have  no  effect  save  possibly  on  the  amount 
of  damages.96 

6.  IDENTITY  OF  INFRINGING  DEVICE  97  —  a.  In  General.     It  is  not  necessary  that 
every  feature  of  the  invention  disclosed  in  the  patent  be  used  in  order  to  consti- 
tute infringement,  but  it  is  sufficient  that  the  essential  features  as  set  forth  in  the 
claim  are  taken.     Substantial  identity  is  all  that  is  required.     If  the  essence  of 
the  invention  is  taken,  variations  in  detail  will  not  avoid  infringement.98     Mere 


87  Fed.  997;  Clerk  v.  Tannage  Patent  Co.,  84 
Fed.  643,  28  C.  C.  A.  501 ;  Bonsack  Mach.  Co. 
v.  Underwood,  73  Fed.  206;  Albright  v.  Cellu- 
loid Harness  Trimming  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
147,  2  Ban.  &  A.  629,  12  Off.  Gaz.  227;  Pop- 
penhusen  v.  Falke,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,279, 
4  Blatchf.  493,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  181;  Pop- 
penhusen  v.  New  York  Gutta  Percha  Comb 
Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,283,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
62.  But  see  United  Tel.  Co.  v.  Sharpies,  29 
Ch.  D.  164,  54  L.  J.  Ch.  633,  52  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  384,  33  Wkly.  Rep.  444,  holding  that 
use  for  experiment  and  instruction  is  in- 
fringement. 

94.  Knowledge  of  one  whose  infringement 
is  contributory  see  infra,  XIII,  B. 

95.  A.  B.  Dick  Co.  v.  Henry,  149  Fed.  424; 
Pardy  v.  J.  D.  Hooker  Co.,  148  Fed.  631,  78 
C.  C.  A.  403 ;  Thompson  v.  N.  T.  Bushnell  Co., 
96  Fed.  238,  37   C.  C.  A.  456   [reversing  88 
Fed.   81];   National  Cash-Register  Co.   v.  Le- 
land,   94   Fed.   502,    37   C.    C.   A.   372;    Mac- 
Knight  17.  McNiece,  64  Fed.   115;   Grosvenor 
17.  Dashiell,  62  Fed.  584;  Smith  v.  Stewart,  55 
Fed.  481  {.affirmed  in  58  Fed.  580,  7  C.  C.  A. 
380]  ;     Winchester    Repeating    Arms    Co.    v. 
American    Buckle,    etc.,    Co.,    54    Fed.    703; 
Pirkl  v.  Smith,  42  Fed.  410;  Timken  v.  Olin, 
41   Fed.   169;   Bate  Refrigerating  Co.  v.  Gil- 
lett,    31    Fed.    809;    Matthews  v.   Skates,    16 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,291,   1   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  602; 
Parker  v.   Hulme,    18   Fed.   Cas.  No.    10,740, 

I  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  44;   Wright  v.  Hitchcock, 
L.  R.  5  Exch.  37,  39  L.  J.  Exch.  97;  Stead  i/. 
Anderson,  4  C.  B.  806,  11  Jur.  877,  16  L.  J. 
C.  P.  250,  56  E.  C.  L.  806;  Heath  v.  Unwin, 

II  Jur.  420,  16  L.  J.  Ch.  283,  15  Sim.  552, 
60    Eng.    Reprint    733;    Curtis    v.    Platt,    11 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  245. 

Warning  inf ringers.- —  It  is  not  incumbent 
upon  patentees  to  warn  infringers.  Proctor 
v.  Bennis,  36  Ch.  D.  740,  57  L.  J.  Ch.  11,  57 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  662,  36  Wkly.  Rep.  456. 

An  erroneous  decision  holding  patent  void 
does  not  relieve  other  infringers  from  lia- 
bility. Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  125  U.  S.  136, 
8  S.  Ct.  894,  31  L.  ed.  664. 

96.  Hogg    v.    Emerson,    11    How.    (U.    S.) 
587,  13  L.  ed.  824;  Regina  Music-Box  Co.  v. 
Paillard,   85   Fed.   644;    Burdett  v.   Estey,   3 
Fed.  566,  19  Blatchf.  1.     And  see  infra,  XIII, 
C,   12,  a,    (n),    (D). 

97.  Change  of  form  as  involving  invention 
see  supra,  III,  E,  9. 

98.  Hobbs  v.  Beach,  180  U.  S.  383,  21  S.  Ct. 
409,    45   L.   ed.   586    [affirming   92   Fed.    146, 
34   C.   C.   A.   248]  ;    Driven  Well   Cases,    122 
U.  S.  40,  7  S.  Ct.  1073,  30  L.  ed.  1064;  Shelby 


Steel  Tube  Co.  v.  Delaware  Seamless  Tube 
Co.,  151  Fed.  64;  Edison  Gen.  Electric  Co.  v. 
Grouse-Hinds  Electric  Co.,  146  Fed.  539  {.re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  152  Fed.  437,  81 
C.  C.  A.  579] ;  Hillard  v.  Fisher  Book  Type- 
writer Co.,  159  Fed.  439;  Wagner  Typewriter 
Co.  i?.  Wyckoff,  151  Fed.  585,  81  C.  C.  A.  129; 
Smyth  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sheridan,  144  Fed.  423; 
International  Time  Recording  Co.  v.  Dey,  142 
Fed.  736,  74  C.  C.  A.  68 ;  Jewell  Filter  Co.  v. 
Jackson,  140  Fed.  340,  72  C.  C.  A.  304;  Cazier 
17.  Mackie-Lovejoy  Mfg.  Co.,  138  Fed.  654,  71 
C.  C.  A.  104;  Solmson  v.  Bredin,  136  Fed. 
187,  69  C.  C.  A.  203  {.affirming  132  Fed. 
161] ;  Hutter  17.  De  Q.  Bottle  Stopper  Co., 
128  Fed.  283,  62  C.  C.  A.  652;  Van  Epps  v. 
International  Paper  Co.,  124  Fed.  542 ;  H.  C. 
White  Co.  17.  Walbridge,  118  Fed.  166;  Cimi- 
otti  Unhairing  Co.  v.  American  Unhairing 
Mach.  Co.,  115  Fed.  498,  53  C.  C.  A.  230; 
Morrison  v.  Sonn,  111  Fed.  172;  Campbell 
Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Duplex  Printing- 
Press  Co.,  86  Fed.  315;  Morgan  v.  Maul,  84 
Fed.  336;  Dunbar  v.  Eastern  Elevating  Co., 
75  Fed.  567;  Consolidated  Car  Heating  Co.  v. 
Martin  Anti-Fire  Car  Heater  Co.,  71  Fed. 
697;  Shaver  v.  Skinner  Mfg.  Co.,  30  Fed. 
68;  May  v.  Fond  du  Lac  County,  27  Fed. 
691;  Globe  Nail  Co.  v.  U.  S.  Horse  Nail  Co., 
19  Fed.  819;  Coupe  v.  Weatherhead,  16  Fed. 
673;  Ward  v.  Grand  Detour  Plow  Co.,  14 
Fed.  696;  Crompton  v.  Knowles,  7  Fed.  204; 
Holly  v.  Vergennes  Mach.  Co.,  4  Fed.  74,  18 
Blatchf.  327;  American  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Lane,  1 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  304,  3  Ban.  &  A.  268,  14 
Blatchf.  438,  15  Off.  Gaz.  421;  Blanchard 
v.  Eldridge,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,509;  Blanch- 
ard v.  Reeves,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,515,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  103 ;  Blandy  v.  Griffith,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,529,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  609;  Burr  v. 
Prentiss,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,194;  Byam  v. 
Eddy,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,263,  2  Blatchf.  521, 
24  Vt.  666;  Carter  v.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512; 
Coleman  v.  Liesor,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,984; 
Collender  v.  Came,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,999,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  412,  4  Cliff.  393,  10  Off.  Gaz.  467 ; 
Conover  v.  Roach,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,125,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  12;  Converse  v.  Cannon,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,144,  2  Woods  7,  9  Off.  Gaz. 
105;  Crompton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,406,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536;  Davis  17. 
Palmer,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,645,  2  Brock.  298, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  518;  Fuller  17.  Yentzer,  9 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,151,  1  Ban.  &  A.  520,  6  Biss. 
203;  Goodyear  v.  Day,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,566;  Henderson  17.  Cleveland  Co-operative 
Stove  Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,351,  2  Ban.  &  A. 

[XIII,  A,  6,  a] 


974     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


differences  in  form  are  immaterial,"  unless  the  invention  claimed  resides  in  the 
form.  Where  this  is  the  case  substantial  identity  of  form  is  necessary.1  To 
constitute  infringement  the  principle  of  operation  must  be  the  same.2  and  there 
must  be  substantial  identity  of  means  and  not  merely  of  function  or  result.3 


604,  12  Off.  Gaz.  4;  Howes  v.  McNeal,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,789,  3  Ban.  &  A.  376,  15 
Blatchf.  103,  15  Off.  Gaz.  608;  Lorillard  v. 
McDowell,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,510,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  531,  11  Off.  Gaz.  640,  13  Phila.  (Pa.) 
461;  McComb  v.  Brodie,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,708,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  384,  1  Woods  153,  2 
Off.  Gaz.  117;  McCormick  v.  Seymour,  15 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,726,  2  Blatchf.  240;  Odiorne 
v.  Winkley,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,432,  2  Gall. 
51,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  52;  Page  u.  Ferry,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,662,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  298; 
Parker  v.  Haworth,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,738, 
4  McLean  370,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  725;  Parker 
r.  Stiles,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,749,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  319,  5  McLean  44;  Pitts  v.  Edmonds, 
19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,191,  1  Biss.  168,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  52;  Root  v.  Ball,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,035,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  513,  4  McLean  177; 
Sickels  t-.  Borden,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,832, 
3  Blatchf.  535;  Smith  v.  Downing,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,036,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  64;  Storrs 
r.  Howe,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,495,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
420,  4  Cliff.  388,  10  Off.  Gaz.  421;  Thorn  v. 
Worthing  Skating  Rink  Co.,  6  Ch.  D.  415 
note;  Consolidated  Car  Heating  Co.  v.  Came, 
18  Quebec  Super.  Ct.  44. 

Theory  is  immaterial  if  there  is  substan- 
tial identity  of  things.  Foss  v.  Herbert,  9 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,957,  1  Biss.  121,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  31. 

99.  Busch  v.  Jones,  16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
23;  O'Reilly  v.  Morse,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  62, 
14  L.  ed.  601 ;  Shelby  Steel  Tube  Co.  v.  Dela- 
ware Seamless  Tube  Co.,  151  Fed.  64;  Ferry- 
Hallock  Co.  v.  Hallock,  142  Fed.  172;  Nathan 
v.  Howard,  143  Fed.  889,  75  C.  C.  A.  97 
[affirmed  in  160  Fed.  928] ;  Rood  v.  Evans, 
92  Fed.  371;  National  Folding-Box,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Elsas,  86  Fed.  917,  30  C.  C.  A.  487; 
Taylor  v.  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.,  75  Fed.  301, 
22*  C.  C.  A.  203  [affirming  69  Fed.  837]; 
Kilmer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Griswold,  62  Fed. 
119  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  67  Fed. 
1017,  15  C.  C.  A.  161];  Jones  v.  Holman,  58 
Fed.  973  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  61 
Fed.  105,  9  C.  C.  A.  385] ;  National  Folding- 
Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  American  Paper  Pail,  etc., 
Co.,  55  Fed.  488;  American  Paper  Pail,  etc., 
Co.  v.  National  Folding  Box,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed. 
229,  2  C.  C.  A.  165;  Chicopee  Folding-Box 
Co.  v.  Nugent,  41  Fed.  139 ;  Sewing-Mach.  Co. 
v.  Frame,  24  Fed.  596;  Grier  v.  Castle,  17 
Fed.  523;  Colligiion  V.  Hayes,  8  Fed.  912; 
Blanchard  v.  Puttman,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,514, 
2  Bond  84,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  186;  Cahoon  v. 
Ring,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,292,  1  Cliff.  592,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  397 ;  Carter  v.  Baker,  5  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy. 
512;  Case  v.  Brown,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,488,  1 
Biss.  382,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  268  [affirmed  in 
2  Wall.  320,  17  L.  ed.  817] ;  Foss  v.  Herbert, 
9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,957,  1  Biss.  121,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  31;  Graham  v.  Mason,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,671,  4  Cliff.  88,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1;  Howe 

[XIII,  A,  6,  a] 


v.  Williams,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,778,  2  Cliff. 
245,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  395;  Judson  v.  Cope, 

14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  615;  Latta  v.  Shawk,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8,116,  1  Bond  259,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465; 
Potter  v.  Wilson,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,342,  2 
Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   102;    Sargent  v.  Larned,   21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,364,  2  Curt.  340;  Sickels  v. 
Borden,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   12,832,  3  Blatchf. 
535;  Teese  v.  Phelps,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,819, 
McAllister  48;  Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Mat- 
thiesson,    24   Fed.    Cas.   No.    14,399,    3    Cliff. 
639,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  600;  Van  Hook  v.  Pen- 
dleton,   28   Fed.   Cas.  No.    16,851,    1   Blatchf. 
187,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  120. 

Making  in  two  parts  instead  of  one  will 
not  avoid  infringement.  Hammond  Buckle 
Co.  v.  Hathaway,  48  Fed.  834;  Hayes  v. 
Bickelhoupt,  21  Fed.  567;  Mabie  v.  Haskell, 

15  Fed.   Cas.   No.   8,653,   2   Cliff.   507.       See 
Western   Tube   Co.   v.   Rainear,    156   Fed.   49 
[affirmed  in  159  Fed.  431]. 

Difference  in  size  will  not  avoid  infringe- 
ment. Rogers  v.  Sargent,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,020,  7  Blatchf.  507. 

1.  Lehigh    Valley    R.    Co.    v.    Mellon,    104 
U.  S.'  112,  26  L.  ed.  639;  Werner  v.  King,  96 
U.  S.  218,  24  L.  ed.  613;  Shelby  Steel  Tube 
Co.  v.  Delaware  Seamless  Tube  Co.,  151  Fed. 
64   [affirmed  in  160  Fed.  928] ;  Polsdorfer  r. 
St.  Louis  Wooden- Ware  Works,  37   Fed.  57 ; 
Toepfer  v.  Goetz,  31  Fed.  913;  Newark  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Hargett,  28  Fed.  567;  Scott  v.  Evans, 
11  Fed.  726. 

2.  Peerless  Rubier  Mfg.  Co.  v.  White,  118 
Fed.   827,   55   C.   C.  A.   502;   Goodyear   Shoe 
Mach.    Co.    v.    Spaulding,    110    Fed.    393,    49 
C.  C.  A.  88;  Brett  v.  Quintard,  10  Fed.  741, 
20  Blatchf.  320;  White  v.  Noyes,  2  Fed.  782; 
May  v.   Johnson   County,    16   Fed.    Cas.   No. 
9,334 ;  Wintermute  v.  Redington,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  239. 

3.  Boyden    Power-Brake    Co.    v.    Westing- 
house,  170  U.  S.  537,  18  S.  Ct.  707,  42  L.  ed. 
1136    [reversing   70    Fed.    816,    17    C.    C.   A. 
430];   Masseth  v.  Larkin,   119   Fed.   171,  56 
C.  C.  A.  167  [affirming  111  Fed.  409] ;  Pitts- 
burg  Meter  Co.  v.  Pittsburg  Supply  Co.,  109 
Fed.  644,  48  C.  C.  A.  580;  Taber  Bas-Reliof 
Photograph    Co.    v.   Marceau,    87    Fed.    871; 
Dickinson  v.  A.  Plamondon  Mfg.  Co.,  76  Fed. 
455 ;  American  Pin  Co.  v.  Oakville  Co.,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  313,  3  Blatchf.  190;  Burden  v.  Corn- 
ing, 4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,143,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
477;  Burr  v.  Duryee,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,190, 
2   Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  275    [affirmed  in   1   Wall. 
531,  17  L.  ed.  650,  660,  661];  Lee  v.  Blandy, 
15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,182,  1  Bond  361,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  89;  Morris  v.  Barrett,  17  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,827,  1  Bond  254,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  461 ; 
Reckendorfer    v.    Faber,    20    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
11,625,  1  Ban.  &  A.  229,  12  Blatchf.  68,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  697  [affirmed  in  92  U.  S.  347,  23  L.  ed. 
719];  Singer  v.  Walmsley,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,900,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  558. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     975 


b.  Limitation  of  Claims.  Each  claim  of  the  patent  is  separately  considered  in 
determining  infringement,4  and  while  a  claim  describing  the  invention  in  broad 
terms  may  be  infringed  by  devices  differing  in  many  respects  from  that  of  the 
patent,5  a  claim  including  a  distinct  limitation  to  a  particular  feature  is  not 
infringed  unless  that  feature  is  used.6 

e.  Diversity  of  Use.  The  use  of  an  invention  for  an  analogous  purpose  is 
infringement,7  but  use  for  a  non-analogous  purpose  where  invention  is  necessary 
to  procure  its  adaptability  is  not  infringement.8 

d.  Combination.  A  claim  to  a  combination  of  old  elements,  materials,  or  parts 
is  not  infringed  unless  every  element,  material,  or  part  mentioned  in  the  claim, 
or  its  equivalent,  is  used  in  the  same  relation;9  and  in  the  application  of  this  rule 
it  is  immaterial  that  one  or  more  of  the  elements  specified  in  the  claim  are  not  of 


Identity  of  means,  operation,  and  result  is 
necessary.  American  Can  Co.  v.  Hickmott 
Asparagus  Canning  Co.,  137  Fed.  86. 

4.  Mast  v.  Dempster  Mill  Mfg.  Co.,  82  Fed. 
327,  27  C.  C.  A.   191;   Holloway  v.  Dow,  54 
Fed.  511;   Foss  v.  Herbert,   9  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
4,957,  1  Biss.  121,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  31;  Union 
Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthiesson,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    14,399,   3   Cliff.   639,   2   Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
600. 

5.  General  Electric  Co.  v.  Brooklyn  Heights 
R.  Co.,  117  Fed.  613;  Tuscarawas  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Cole,   109   Fed.   161;    Thomson-Houston  Elec- 
tric  Co.   v.   Lorain   Steel   Co.,    103   Fed.   641 
[affirmed  in  107  Fed.  711,  46  C.  C.  A.  593]; 
Hatch  Storage  Battery  Co.  v.  Electric  Storage 
Battery  Co.,  100  Fed.  975;  Parsons  v.  Seelye, 
100  Fed.  455,  40  C.  C.  A.  486   [reversing  92 
Fed.    1005] ;    American   Paper   Barrel   Co.   v. 
Laraway,    28    Fed.    141;    Fricke  v.   Hum,   22 
Fed.  302;  Gibson  v.  Betts,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,390,  1  Blatchf.  163,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  91. 

6.  Lane  v.  Levi,  21  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   168; 
Hubbell  v.  U.  S.,  179  U.  S.  77,  21  S.  Ct.  24, 
45    L.    ed.    95;    Ball,    etc.,    Fastener    Co.    v. 
Kraetzer,    150   U.    S.    Ill,    14   S.   Ct.   48,    37 
L.  ed.  1019 ;  McClain  v.  Ortmayer,  141  U.  S. 
419,   12  S.  Ct.  76,  35  L.  ed.  800;   Anderson 
Foundry,  etc.,  Works  v.  Potts,  108  Fed.  379, 
47  C.  C.  A.  409;   Consolidated  Store-Service 
Co.   v.    Siegel-Cooper   Co.,    107    Fed.    716,   46 
C.   C.  A.   599;    Lepper  v.  Randall,   105  Fed. 
975;    Ross-Moyer   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Randall,    104 
Fed.  355,  43  C.  C.  A.  578 ;  Union  Steam-Pump 
Co.  v.  Battle  Creek  Steam-Pump  Co.,  104  Fed. 
337,  43  C.  C.  A.  560;  Starrett  v.  J.  Stevens 
Arms,  etc.,  Co.,  96  Fed.  244;   A.  J.  Phillips 
Co.  v.  Owosso  Mfg.  Co.,  83  Fed.   176;   Foos 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Springfield  Engine,  etc.,  Co.,  49 
Fed.  641,  1  C.  C.  A.  410   [affirming  44  Fed. 
595]  ;   Heine   Safety  Boiler  Co.  V.  Anheuser- 
Busch  Brewing  Assoc.,  43  Fed.  786  [a/firmed 
in  154  U.  S.  504,   14  S.  Ct.  1146,  38  L.  ed. 
1083] ;  Newark  Mach.  Co.  v.  Hargett,  28  Fed. 
567;    Osceola  Mfg.   Co.   v.   Pie,   28   Fed.   83; 
Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Pratt,  21  Fed.  313;  Mc- 
Kay v.  Stowe,  17  Fed.  516;  Cornell  v.  Little- 
John,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,238,  2  Ban.  &  A.  324, 
9  Off.  Gaz.  837,  922;  Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v. 
Phoenix  Iron  Co.,   14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,751,  5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  468,  1  Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila. 
(Pa.)   374. 

Claim  to  an  article  including  limitations 
as  to  the  process  of  making  it  is  not  in- 
fringed by  another  process.  Expanded  Metal 


Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Bd.  of  Education,  103  Fed. 
287. 

7.  Sanitary  Fireproofing,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Sprick- 
erhoff,  139  Fed.  801,  71  C.  C.  A.  565;  West- 
inghouse   Electric,   etc.,   Co.  v.   Roberts,    125 
Fed.  6;  Williams  Patent  Crusher,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
St.  Louis  Pulverizer  Co.,  104  Fed.  795;  Red 
Jacket  Mfg.    Co.   v.   Davis,   82   Fed.   432,   27 
C.  C.  A.  204 ;  Long  v.  Pope  Mfg.  Co.,  75  Fed. 
835,  21   C.  C.  A.  533;   Thompson  v.  Gilder- 
sleeve,  34  Fed.  43 ;  Cincinnati  Ice-Mach.  Co.  v. 
Foss    Schneider   Brewing   Co.,    31    Fed.   469; 
Zinn  v.  Weiss,  7  Fed.  914;  American  Wood- 
Paper  Co.  v.  Fibre  Disintegrating  Co.,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  320,  6  Blatchf.  27,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
362  [affirmed  in  23  Wall.  566,  23  L.  ed.  31] : 
Mabie  v.  Haskell,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,653,  2 
Cliff.  507;   Pike  v.  Potter,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,162,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  55;  Young  v.  Lipp- 
man,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,160,  9  Blatchf.  277, 

5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  230,  2  Off.  Gaz.  249,  342; 
Cannington  v.  Nuttall,  L.  R.  5  H.  L.  205,  40 
L.  J.  Ch.  739. 

8.  Gary  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Standard  Metal  Strap 
Co.,  120  Fed.  945,  57  C.  C.  A.  235 ;  Johnson  v. 
McCurdy,    108    Fed.    671,   47    C.    C.   A.   577; 
Thomson  Meter   Co.   v.  National  Meter  Co., 
106  Fed.  519;  Palmer  v.  De  Yongh,  90  Fed. 
281;    MacColl  v.   Knowles   Loom   Works,   87 
Fed.   727;    Heap  v.  Tremont,  etc.,   Mills,   82 
Fed.  449,  27  C.  C.  A.  316;  Boston,  etc.,  Elec- 
tric St.  R.  Co.  17.  Bemis  Car  Box  Co.,  80  Fed. 
287,  25  C.  C.  A.  420;  Long  v.  Pope  Mfg.  Co., 
75  Fed.  835,  21  C.  C.  A.  533;  Hoe  v.  Knap, 
27  Fed.  204;  Osmer  v.  J.  B.  Sickles  Saddlery 
Co.,  23  Fed.   724;    Judd  v.  Babcock,   8   Fed. 
605;  Brown  v.  Rubber  Step  Mfg.  Co.,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,028,  3  Ban.  &  A.  232,  13  Off.  Gaz. 
369;    Stuart    v.    Shantz,    23    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
13,556,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  35,  2  Off.  Gaz.  524, 
9  Phila.    (Pa.)    376;   Tatham  v.  Le  Roy,  23 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,762;  Higgs  v.  Goodwin,  E.  B. 

6  E.   529,  5  Jur.  N.   S.  97,  27   L.  J.   Q.  B. 
421,  96  E.  C.  L.  529. 

9.  Fenton  Metallic  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Office  Spe- 
cialty Mfg.  Co.,   12  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    201; 
Knapp  v.  Morss,  150  U.  S.  221,  14  S.  Ct.  81, 
37  L.  ed.  1059;  Garratt  v.  Seibert,  131  U.  S. 
appendix    cxv,    21    L.    ed.    956;    Electric    R. 
Signal  Co.  v.  Hall  R.  Signal  Co.,  114  U.  S. 
87,  5   S.  Ct.   1069,   29  L.  ed.   96;   Rowell  v. 
Lindsay,  113  U.  S.  97,  5  S.  Ct.  507,  28  L.  ed. 
906  [affirming  6  Fed.  290,  10  Biss.  217] ;  Mc- 
Murray  v.  Mallory,   111   U.   S.   97,   4  S.   Ct. 
375,  28  L.  ed.  365   [affirming  5  Fed.  593,  4 

[XIII,  A,  6,  d] 


976     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


the  essence   of  the  invention.     Every  element  claimed  must  be  regarded  as 


Hughes  265]  ;  Fuller  v.  Yentzer,  94  U.  S.  288, 
24  L.  ed.  103;  Rees  v.  Gould,  15  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
187,  21  L.  ed.  39;  Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  620,  20  L.  ed.  860;  Stimpson  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  How.  (U.  S.)  329, 
13  L.  ed.  441;  Consolidated  Engine  Stop  Co. 
v.  Landers,  160  Fed.  79;  H.  F.  Brainmer  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Witte  Hardware  Co.,  159  Fed.  726; 
Ajax  Forge  Co.  v.  Morden  Frog,  etc.,  Works, 
156  Fed.  591] ;  American  Chocolate  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Helmstetter,  142  Fed.  978,  74  C.  C.  A. 
240;  O.  H.  Jewell  Filter  Co.  v.  Jackson, 
140  Fed.  340,  72  C.  C.  A.  304;  American 
Can  Co.  v.  Hickmott  Asparagus  Canning 
Co.,  137  Fed.  86;  Levy  v.  Harris,  130 
Fed.  711,  65  C.  C.  A.  113;  American  Fur 
Refining  Co.  v.  Cimiotti  Unhairing  Mach.  Co., 
123  Fed.  869,  59  C.  C.  A.  357  [affirmed  in 
198  U.  S.  399,  25  S.  Ct.  697,  49  L.  ed.  1100] ; 
Cimiotti  Unhairing  Co.  v.  Derbohlaw,  115 
Fed.  510,  53  C.  C.  A.  164;  Pittsburg  Meter 
Co.  v.  Pittsburg  Supply  Co.,  109  Fed.  644,  48 
C.  C.  A.  580;  Wellman  v.  Midland  Steel  Co., 
106  Fed.  221;  Starrett  v.  J.  Stevens  Arms, 
etc.,  Co.,  100  Fed.  93,  40  C.  C.  A.  289;  Nor- 
ton v.  Wheaton,  97  Fed.  636;  Thompson  v. 
Second  Ave.  Traction  Co.,  89  Fed.  321 ;  Camp- 
bell Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.  v<  Duplex  Print- 
ing-Press Co.,  86  Fed.  315;  Kansas  City  Hay- 
Press  Co.  v.  Devol,  81  Fed.  726,  26  C.  C.  A. 
578;  Carter  Mach.  Co.  v.  Hanes,  78  Fed.  346, 
24  C.  C.  A.  128 ;  Muller  v.  Lodge,  etc.,  Mach. 
Tool  Co.,  77  Fed.  621,  23  C.  C.  A.  357 ;  Adams 
Electric  R.  Co.  v.  Lindell  R.  Co.,  77  Fed.  432, 
23  C.  C.  A.  223  [.affirming  63  Fed.  986]  ;  P.  H. 
Murphy  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Excelsior  Car-Roof  Co., 
76  Fed.  965,  22  C.  C.  A.  658 ;  Engle  Sanitary, 
etc.,  Co.  t>.  Elwood,  73  Fed.  484;  Brown  v. 
Stilwell,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  57  Fed.  731,  741,  6 
C.  C.  A.  528;  Ashton  Valve  Co.  v.  Coale 
Muffler,  etc.,  Co.,  50  Fed.  100  [affirmed  in  52 
Fed.  314,  3  C.  C.  A.  98] ;  Ross  v.  Montana 
Union  R.  Co.,  45  Fed.  424;  Innis  v.  Oil  City 
Boiler  Works,  41  Fed.  788;  Tatum  v.  Greg- 
ory, 41  Fed.  142;  Ott  v.  Earth,  32  Fed.  89; 
Thoens  v.  Israel,  31  Fed.  556;  Blades  v.  Rand, 
27  Fed.  93  [affirmed  in  136  U.  S.  631,  10 
S.  Ct.  1065,  34  L.  ed.  553] ;  Saladee  v.  Racine 
Wagon,  etc.,  Co.,  20  Fed.  686;  Gould  v. 
Spicers,  20  Fed.  317;  Howe  v.  Neemes,  18 
Fed.  40;  Matteson  v.  Caine,  17  Fed.  525,  8 
Sawy.  498;  Rowell  v.  Lindsay,  6  Fed.  290,  10 
Bis*.  217  [affirmed  in  113  U.  S.  97,  5  S.  Ct. 
507,  28  L.  ed.  906]  ;  Fourot  v.  Hawes,  3  Fed. 
456;  Barrett  v.  Hall,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,047,  1 
Mason  447,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  207;  Bell  v. 
Daniels,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,247,  1  Bond  212,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  372;  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  3 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,946,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  72,  4  Mc- 
Lean 70;  Burr  v.  Duryee,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,190,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  275  [affirmed  in  1 
Wall.  531,  17  L.  ed.  650,  660,  661] ;  Cromp- 
ton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,406, 
3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536;  Howe  v.  Abbott,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,766,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  99,  2 
Story  190;  Huggins  v.  Hubby,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,839;  McCormick  v.  Manny,  15  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8,724,  6  McLean  539  [affirmed  in  20  How. 
402,  15  L.  ed.  930] ;  Nicholson  Pavement  Co. 

[XIII,  A,  6,  d] 


v.  Hatch,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,251,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  432,  4  Sawy.  692;  Pitts  v.  Wemple,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,195,  6  McLean  558;  Rich  v. 
Close,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,757,  8  Blatchf. 
41,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  279;  Rollhaus  v.  Mc- 
Pherson,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,026;  Smith  v. 
Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,058;  Berdan 
Fire-Arms  Mfg.  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  25  Ct.  Cl.  355 
[affirmed  in  156  U.  S.  552,  15  S.  Ct.  420,  39 
L.  ed.  530];  Pacific  Submarine,  etc.,  Proof 
Wall  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  19  Ct.  Cl.  234;  Dudgeon 
v.  Thomson,  3  App.  Cas.  34;  Clark  v.  Adie,  2 
App.  Cas.  315,  46  L.  J.  Ch.  585,  36  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  923;  Curtis  v.  Platt,  L.  R.  1  H.  L. 
337,  35  L.  J.  Ch.  852;  Parkes  v.  Stevens, 
L.  R.  8  Eq.  358,  38  L.  J.  Ch.  627,  17  Wkly. 
Rep.  846  [affirmed  in  L.  R.  5  Ch.  36,  22 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  635,  18  Wkly.  Rep.  233]  ; 
Saxby  v.  Clunes,  43  L.  J.  Excli.  228;  White 
v.  Fenn,  15  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  505,  15  Wkly. 
Rep.  348. 

Similarity  of  result  not  sufficient  to  con- 
stitute infringement.  Westinghouse  v.  Boy- 
den  Power-Brake  Co.,  170  U.  S.  537,  18  S.  Ct. 
707,  42  L.  ed.  1136;  Miller  v.  Eagle  Mfg. 
Co.,  151  U.  S.  186,  14  S.  Ct.  310,  38  L.  ed. 
121;  Gage  v.  Herring,  107  U.  S.  640,  2  S.  Ct. 
819,  27  L.  ed.  601;  Jenkins  v.  Mahoney,  135 
Fed.  550  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  138 
Fed.  404,  70  C.  C.  A.  662];  Norton  v. 
Wheaton,  97  Fed.  636. 

For  cases  holding  that  there  was  no  in- 
fringement see  Ball,  etc.,  Fastener  Co.  v. 
Kraetzer,  150  U.  S.  Ill,  14  S.  Ct.  48,  37 
L.  ed.  1019;  Gordon  v.  Warder,  150  U.  S. 
47,  14  S.  Ct.  32,  37  L.  ed.  992;  Roemer  v. 
Peddie,  132  U.  S.  313,  10  S.  Ct.  98,  33  L.  ed. 
382;  Sharp  v.  Riessner,  119  U.  S.  631,  7 
S.  Ct.  417,  30  L.  ed.  507;  Bridge  v.  Excelsior 
Mfg.  Co.,  105  U.  S.  618,  26  L.  ed.  1191; 
Kursheedt  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Adler,  107  Fed.  488, 
46  C.  C.  A.  422  [affirming  103  Fed.  948]; 
Consolidated  Store-Service  Co.  v.  Seybold,  105 
Fed.  978,  45  C.  C.  A.  152;  Jones  Special 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Pentucket  Variable  Stitch  Sew- 
ing-Mach.  Co.,  104  Fed.  556,  44  C.  C.  A. 
33;  Consolidated  Store-Service  Co.  v.  Siegel- 
Cooper  Co.,  103  Fed.  489;  Whitaker  Cement 
Co.  t\  Huntington  Dry  Pulverizer  Co.,  95 
Fed.  471,  37  C.  C.  A.  151;  Risdon  Iron,  etc., 
Works  v.  Trent,  92  Fed.  375  [modified  in  102 
Fed.  635,  42  C.  C.  A.  529]  ;  Kansas  City  Hay- 
Press  Co.  v.  Devol,  81  Fed.  726,  26  C.  C.  A. 
578;  Babcock  v.  Clarkson,  58  Fed.  581;  Gates 
Iron  Works  v.  Fraser,  55  Fed.  409,  5  C.  C.  A. 
154;  Douglas  v.  Abraham,  50  Fed.  420;  Stauf- 
fer  v.  Spangler,  50  Fed.  84;  Foos  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Springfield  Engine,  etc.,  Co.,  49  Fed.  641,  1 
C.  C.  A.  410;  Challenge  Corn-Planter  Co.  v. 
Gearhardt,  46  Fed.  768;  Joliet  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Keystone  Mfg.  Co.,  39  Fed.  798;  Royer  v. 
Schultz  Belting  Co.,  28  Fed.  850;  Bucking- 
ham v.  Porter,  26  Fed.  759,  10  Sawy.  289; 
Crompton  v.  Knowles,  7  Fed.  199;  Birdsell  v. 
Hagerstown  Agricultural  Implement  Mfg  Co., 
3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,436,  2  Ban.  &  A.  519,  1 
Hughes  59,  11  Off.  Gaz.  420;  Merriam  v. 
Drake,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,461,  9  Blatchf.  336, 
5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  259;  Wheeler  v.  Simpson, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     977 


material,  although  it  is  not  so  in  fact.10  A  patentee  will  not  be  heard  to  deny  the 
materiality  of  any  element  included  in  his  claim.11  When  parts  are  substituted 
they  must  be  equivalents  to  constitute  infringement,12  and  they  must  be  combined 
in  the  same  way.13  While,  as  already  shown,  a  patent  for  a  combination  is  not 
infringed  if  any  one  of  the  elements  is  omitted,  a  mere  change  of  form  or  loca- 
tion, or  sequence  of  the  elements,  which  does  not  change  the  essence  of  the  com- 
bination, will  not  avoid  infringement.14  So  where  some  of  the  parts  of  the  com- 
bination are  new,  and  those  parts  are  taken  and  used  in  the  same  manner,  but 
with  different  things  from  the  rest  of  the  combination  patented,  and  a  part  of  the 
patented  invention  is  taken  although  the  whole  is  not,  it  is  an  infringement  to 
that  extent.15 

e.  Process.     A  claim  to  an  art  or  process  is  not  infringed  except  by  the  use 
of  all  of  the  steps  or  their  equivalents  and  in  the  order  stated.16     And  it  is  well 


20  Fed.  Gas.  No.  17,500,  1  Ban.  &  A.  420,  6 
Off.  Gaz.  435;  Carter  v.  Hamilton,  23  Can. 
Sup.  Ct.  172;  Sylvester  v.  Masson,  12  Ont. 
App.  335. 

10.  Wright  v.  Yuengling,  155  U.  S.  47,  15 
S.  Ct.  1,  39  L.  ed.  64 ;  Union  Water  Meter  Co. 
v.   Desper,    101    U.   S.    332,   25   L.   ed.    1024; 
Levy  v.  Harris,  124  Fed.  69  [affirmed  in  135 
Fed.  1023] ;  Pittsburg  Meter  Co.  v.  Pittsburg 
Supply  Co.,   109  Fed.  644,  48  C.  C.  A.  580; 
Kinzel  v.  Luttrell  Brick  Co.,  67  Fed.  926,  15 
C.  C.  A.  82;  Rowell  v.  Lindsay,  6  Fed.  290, 
10   Biss.   217    [affirmed  in    113   U.    S.   97,   5 
S.  Ct.  507,  28  L.  ed.  906]. 

11.  Eames  v.  Godfrey,  1  Wall.   (U.  S.)    78, 
17  L.  ed.  547;  Adam  v.  Folger,  120  Fed.  260, 
56  C.  C.  A.  540. 

12.  Robins  Conveying  Belt  Co.  v.  American 
Road  Mach.   Co.,   145  Fed.  923,  76   C.  C.  A. 
461;    Singer   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Cramer,    109    Fed. 
652,  48  d  C.  A.  588;  Brammer  v.  Schroeder, 
106  Fed.  918,  46  C.  C.  A.  41;  National  Hol- 
low Brake-Beam  Co.  v.  Interchangeable  Brake- 
Beam   Co.,    106   Fed.   693,   45   C.   C.  A.   544; 
Noonan  v.  Chester  Park  Athletic  Club  Co.,  99 
Fed.  90,  39  C.  C.  A.  426;  Burdett  v.  Estey,  4 
Fed.   Cas.   No.   2,146,   4   Ban.   &  A.   141,    16 
Blatchf.   105;    Crompton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,406,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536; 
Densmore  v.  Schofield,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,809, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  148. 

13.  Crompton  v.  Belknap  Mills,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,406,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  18,285;  Tatham  v.  Le  Roy,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,760,  2  Blatchf.  474. 

14.  Adam    v.    Folger,    120    Fed.    260,    56 
C.  C.  A.  540;  Dowagiac  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Superior 
Drill  Co.,  115  Fed.  886,  53  C.  C.  A.  36;  Ide 
v.  Trorlicht,  etc.,  Carpet  Co.,   115  Fed.   137, 
53  C.  C.  A.  341 ;  National  Hollow  Brake-Beam 
Co.  v.   Interchangeable  Brake-Beam  Co.,   106 
Fed.  693,  45  C.  C.  A.  544;  Thompson  v.  Sec- 
ond Ave.  Traction  Co.,  93  Fed.  824,  35  C.  C.  A. 
620;   Taylor  v.   Sawyer  Spindle  Co.,  75  Fed. 
301,  22  C.  C.  A.  203. 

15.  Thompson  v.  American  Bank-Note  Co., 
35  Fed.  203;  Adair  v.  Thayer,  4  Fed.  441,  17 
Blatchf.  468;   Sharp  v.  Tifft,  2  Fed.  697,  18 
Blatchf;  132;   Latta  v.  Shawk,   14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8,116,  1  Bond  259,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465; 
Lee   v.    Blandy,    15    Fed.    Cas.    No.    8,182,    1 
Bond  361,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  89;  Rose  v.  Sib- 
ley    Mach.    Co.,    20    Fed.    Cas.    No.    12,051; 

[62] 


Union  Sugar  Refinery  v.  Matthiesson,  24  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  14,399,  3  Cliff.  639,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
600;  Lister  'v.  Leather,  8  E.  &  B.  1004,  4 
Jur.  N.  S.  947,  27  L.  J.  Q.  B.  295,  92  E.  C.  L. 
1004;  Newton  v.  Grand  Junction  R.  Co.,  5 
Exch.  331  note,  20  L.  J.  Exch.  427  note,  6 
Eng.  L.  &  Eq.  557;  Sellers  v.  Dickinson,  5 
Exch.  312,  20  L.  J.  Exch.  417,  6  Eng.  L.  & 
Eq.  544. 

16.  U.  S.  Glass  Co.  v.  Atlas  Glass  Co.,  90 
Fed.  724,  33  C.  C.  A.  254;  Kennedy  v.  Solar 
Refining  Co.,  69  Fed.  715;  Brush  Electric  Co. 
v.  Electrical  Accumulator  Co.,  47  Fed.  48 
[modified  in  52  Fed.  130,  2  C.  C.  A.  682]; 
Hatch  v.  Towne,  35  Fed.  139;  Royer  v.  Chi- 
cago Mfg.  Co.,  20  Fed.  853 ;  Arnold  v.  Phelps, 
20  Fed.  315;  Heller  v.  Bauer,  19  Fed.  96; 
Cotter  v.  New  Haven  Copper  Co.,  13  Fed. 
234;  Hammerschlag  v.  Garrett,  10  Fed.  479; 
Hudson  v.  Draper,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,834,  4 
Cliff.  178,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  256;  Unwin  v. 
Heath,  16  C.  B.  713,  81  E.  C.  L.  713,  5 
H.  L.  Cas.  505,  10  Eng.  Reprint  997,  25  L.  J. 
C.  P.  8;  Patent  Bottle  Envelope  Co.  v.  Sey- 
mer,  5  C.  B.  N.  S.  164,  5  Jur.  N.  S.  174,  28 
L.  J.  C.  P.  22,  94  E.  C.  L.  164. 

Identity  of  result  is  not  sufficient. 
Schwartz  v.  Housman,  88  Fed.  519;  Merrill 
v.  Yeomans,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,472,  1  Ban. 
&  A.  47,  Holmes  331,  5  Off.  Gaz.  268  [affirmed 
in  94  U.  S.  568,  24  L.  ed.  235]. 

But  similarity  of  result  may  indicate  iden- 
tity of  process.  Hemolin  Co.  v.  Harway  Dye- 
wood,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  131  Fed.  483  [affirmed 
in  138  Fed.  54,  70  C.  C.  A.  480]. 

Sufficiency  of  substantial  identity. —  Abso- 
lute identity  is  not  necessary,  but  only  sub- 
stantial identity.  Carnegie  Steel  Co.  v.  Cam- 
bria Iron  Co.,  185  U.  S.  403,  22  S.  Ct.  698, 
46  L.  ed.  968  [reversing  96  Fed.  850]  ;  Burdon 
Wire,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Williams,  128  Fed.  927; 
Electric  Smelting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pittsburg  Re- 
duction Co.,  125  Fed.  926,  60  C.  C.  A.  636; 
U.  S.  Mitis  Co.  v.  Carnegie  Steel  Co.,  89  Fed. 
343  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  90  Fed. 
829,  33  C.  C.  A.  387];  New  York  Filter 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Elmira  Waterworks  Co.,  82 
Fed.  459,  83  Fed.  1013;  New  York  Filter 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Niagara  Falls  Waterworks 
Co.,  80  Fed.  924,  26  C.  C.  A.  252,  77 
Fed.  900:  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  South- 
ern Tel.  Co.,  34  Fed.  795 ;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  American  Zylonite  Co.,  31  Fed.  904;  Gary 

[XIII,  A,  6,  e] 


978     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


settled  that  the  purchaser  and  user  of  an  article  made  by  the  process  is  not  an 
infringer.17 

f.  Composition.18  A  claim  to  an  article  or  substance  composed  of  a  particular 
ingredient  or  combination  of  ingredients  is  infringed  by  an  article  having  the 
same  characteristics  and  composed  of  the  same  or  equivalent  ingredients.19  The 


v.  Wolff,  24  Fed.  139,  23  Blatchf.  92;  Gott- 
fried v.  Bartholomae,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,632, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  308,  8  Biss.  219,  6  Reporter  390, 
13  Off.  Gaz.  1128;  Gottfried  v.  Phillip  Best 
Brewing  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,633,  5  Ban. 
&  A.  4,  17  Off.  Gaz.  675;  Jones  v.  Merrill,  13 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,481,  8  Off.  Gaz.  401 ;  Roberts 
v.  Roter,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,912,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  295;  United  Nickel  Co.  v.  Keith,  24  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  14,408,  1  Ban.  &  A.  44,  Holmes  328, 
5  Off.  Gaz.  272;  Whitney  v.  Mowry,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,592,  2  Bond  45,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
157. 

Additions  which  do  not  essentially  vary  the 
process  do  not  avoid  infringement.  Ford 
Morocco  Co.  v.  Tannage  Patent  Co.,  84  Fed. 
644,  28  C.  C.  A.  503 ;  Clerk  v.  Tannage  Patent 
Co.,  84  Fed.  643,  28  C.  C.  A.  501;  Lalance, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Habermann  Mfg.  Co.,  53 
Fed.  375;  Maryland  Hominy,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Dorr,  46  Fed.  773. 

Substitution  of  equivalent  materials  is 
infringement.  Johnson  v.  Willimantic  Linen 
Co.,  33  Conn.  436 ;  United  Nickel  Co.  v.  Cen- 
tral Pac.  R.  Co.,  36  Fed.  186;  Poppenhuseii 
v.  Falke,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,280,  5  Blatchf. 
46,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  213. 

Process  held  not  infringed  see  California 
Artificial  Stone  Paving -Co.  v.  Schalicke,  119 
U.  S.  401,  7  S.  Ct.  391,  30  L.  ed.  471;  Burns 
v.  Meyer,  100  U.  S.  671,  25  L.  ed.  738;  Wolff 
v.  De  Nemours,  122  Fed.  944  [affirmed  in  134 
Fed.  862,  67  C.  C.  A.  488];  Bradford  v. 
Belknap  Motor  Co.,  105  Fed.  63  [  affirmed  in 
115  Fed.  711,  53  C.  C.  A.  293]  ;  Cambria  Iron 
Co.  v.  Carnegie  Steel  Co.,  96  Fed.  850,  37 
C.  C.  A.  593 ;  U.  S.  Repair,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stand- 
ard Paving  Co.,  95  Fed.  137,  37  C.  C.  A.  28; 
Michaelis  v.  Larkin,  91  Fed.  778;  U.  S.  Glass 
Co.  v.  Atlas  Glass  Co.,  90  Fed.  724,  33 
C.  C.  A.  254 ;  Cary  Mfg.  Co.  v.  De  Haven,  88 
Fed.  698 ;  Tabor  Bas-Relief  Photograph  Co.  v. 
Marceau,  87  Fed.  871;  Chicago  Sugar-Re- 
fining Co.  v.  Charles  Pope  Glucose  Co.,  84 
Fed.  977,  28  C.  C.  A.  594;  Philadelphia 
Creamery  Supply  Co.  v.  Davis,  etc.,  Bldg.,  etc., 
Co.,  84  Fed.  881,  28  C.  C.  A.  555;  Electric 
Smelting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Carborundum  Co.,  83 
Fed.  492 ;  Jackson  v.  Birmingham  Brass  Co., 
79  Fed.  801,  25  C.  C.  A.  196;  Cowles  Electric 
Smelting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Lowrey,  79  Fed.  331, 
24  C.  C.  A.  616;  Clement  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Upson, 
etc.,  Co.,  50  Fed.  538;  Smith  v.  Pittsburgh 
Gas  Co.,  42  Fed.  145;  Wickwire  V.  Wire 
Fabric  Co.,  41  Fed.  36;  Consolidated  Bunging 
Apparatus  Co.  v.  H.  Clausen,  etc.,  Brewing 
Co.,  39  Fed.  277;  Gloucester  Isinglass,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Le  Page,  30  Fed.  370;  Globe  Nail  Co. 
v.  Superior  Nail  Co.,  27  Fed.  450  [affirmed 
in  136  U.  S.  636,  10  S.  Ct.  1068,  34  L.  ed. 
552] ;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Comstock,  23 
Fed.  38;  Boneless  Fish  Co.  v.  Roberts,  12  Fed. 
627;  Doubleday  v.  Bracheo,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

[XIII,  A,  6,  e] 


4,018;  Merrill  v.  Yeomans,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,472,  1  Ban.  &  A.  47,  Holmes  331,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  268. 

Process  held  infringed  see  Chisholm  v.  John- 
son, 106  Fed.  191;  Alvin  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Schar- 
ling,  100  Fed.  87 ;  German- American  Filter 
Co.  v.  Erdrich,  98  Fed.  300;  Streator  Cathe- 
dral Glass  Co.  v.  Wire-Glass  Co.,  97  Fed.  950, 
38  C.  C.  A.  573;  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Beacon  Lamp  Co.,  95  Fed.  462 ; 
Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Kalle,  94 
Fed.  163;  Simonds  Rolling-Mach.  Co.  v. 
Hathorn  Mfg.  Co.,  90  Fed.  201 ;  Celluloid  Co. 
v.  Arlington  Mfg.  Co.,  85  Fed.  449;  Ford 
Morocco  Co.  v.  Tannage  Patent  Co.,  84  Fed. 
644,  28  C.  C.  A.  503;  Adams  v.  Tannage 
Patent  Co.,  81  Fed.  178,  26  C.  C.  A.  326; 
Matheson  v.  Campbell,  77  Fed.  280. 

17.  Brown    v.    District    of     Columbia,    3 
Mackey    (D.   C.)    502;    National   Phonograph 
Co.   v.   Lambert  Co.,   125   Fed.   388    [affirmed 
in  142  Fed.  164,  73  C.  C.  A.  382] ;  Welsbach 
Light   Co.  v.   Union  Incandescent   Light  Co., 
101    Fed.    131,    41    C.    C.    A.    255;    Ferris   v. 
Batcheller,  70  Fed.  714;  Durand  v.  Green,  60 
Fed.  392  [affirmed  in  61  Fed.  819,  10  C.  C.  A. 
97] ;  Anonymous,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  477. 

Sale  of  article  is  not  an  infringement  of 
the  machine  which  makes  it.  Boyd  v.  Mc- 
Alpin,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,748,  3  McLean,  427, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  277;  Goodyear  v.  New  Jer- 
sey Cent.  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,563,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  626,  2  Wall.  Jr.  356. 

In  England  the  importation  of  articles  made 
abroad  according  to  the  patented  process  is 
infringement.  Saccharin  Corp.  v.  Anglo-Con- 
tinental Chemical  Works,  [1901]  1  Ch.  414, 
70  L.  J.  Ch.  194,  48  Wkly.  Rep.  444 ;  Elmslie 
v.  Boursier,  L.  R.  9  Eq.  217,  39  L.  J.  Ch.  328, 
18  Wkly.  Rep.  665 ;  Von  Heyden  r.  Neustadt, 
14  Ch.  D.  230,  50  L.  J.  Ch.  126,  42  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  300,  28  Wkly.  Rep.  496. 

In  Canada  use  or  sale  of  article  is  infringe- 
ment. Toronto  Auer  Light  Co.  v.  Colling,  31 
Ont.  18. 

18.  Substitution  of  materials  as  involving 
invention  see  supra.  III,  E,  15. 

19.  Dickerson    v.    Maurer,    108    Fed.    233; 
Propfe  v.  Coddington,  108  Fed.  86,  47  C.  C.  A. 
218     [affirming     105     Fed.     951];     Badische 
Anilin,  etc.,   Fabrik  v.   Kalle,    104   Fed.   802, 
44  C.  C.  A.  201 ;  Stel  wagon  Co.  v.  Chi  Ids,  101 
Fed.  989,  42  C.  C.  A.  127 ;  King  v.  Anderson, 
90  Fed.  500 ;  Wickelman  v.  A.  B.  Dick  Co.,  88 
Fed.    264,    31    C.    C.    A.    530    [affirming    80 
Fed.    519]  ;     American    Graphophone    Co.    V. 
Leeds,   87   Fed.   873;   Welsbach   Light  Co.  v. 
Sunlight  Incandescent  Gas  Lamp  Co.,  87  Fed. 
221;  Holliday  v.  Schulze-Berge,  78  Fed.  493; 
Pasteur  Chamberland  Filter  Co.  v.  Funk,  52 
Fed.  146;  Tibbe,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Lamparter, 
51   Fed.  763;  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  American  Co., 
34   Fed.  320;   Roosevelt  v.  Law  Tel.  Co.,  33 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     979 


addition  of  other  ingredients  to  those  claimed  does  not  avoid  infringement  if  the 
essential  character  of  the  compound  remains  the  same.20  But  an  addition  chang- 
ing the  character  of  the  compound  is  no  infringement.21  There  is  no  infringe- 
ment if  an  ingredient  claimed  is  omitted,23  although  in  the  specifications  the  use 
of  such  ingredient  is  stated  to  be  for  a  particular  case  only.23 

g.  Substitution   of   Equivalents34  —  (r)  IN   GENERAL.     Infringement  is   not 


Fed.  505;  Hobbie  v.  Smith,  27  Fed.  656; 
Kimball  v.  Hess,  15  Fed.  393 ;  Atlantic  Giant- 
Powder  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  623, 

3  Ban.  &  A.   161,   13   Off.  Gaz.  45;   Atlantic 
Giant-Powder  Co.  v.  Parker,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
625,   4   Ban.   &   A.   292,    16   Blatchf.   281,    16 
Off.  Gaz.  495;   Atlantic  Giant-Powder  Co.  v. 
Rand,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  626,  4  Ban.  &  A.  263, 
16   Blatchf.    250,    16   Off.   Gaz.   87;    Bryan  v. 
Stevens,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,066a;  Collender  v. 
Came,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,999,  2  Ban.  &  A.  412, 

4  Cliff.  393,  10  Off.  Gaz.  467;  Goodyear  Den- 
tal Vulcanite  Co.  i/.  Gardiner,   10  Fed.   Cas. 
No.  5,591,  3  Cliff.  408,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  224; 
Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Preterre,  10 
Fed.    Ca*.    No.    5,596,  3    Ban.    &   A.    471,    15 
Blatchf.   274,    14   Off.   Gaz.   346;    Hoffman   v. 
Aronson,    12   Fed.  Cas.  No.   6,576,  8  Blatchf. 
324,   4  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  456;  Rumford  Chem- 
ical Works  v.  Hecker,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,133, 
2  Ban.  &  A.   351,   10  Off.  Gaz.  289;   Tarr  v. 
Folsom,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,756,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
24,  Holmes  312,   50  Off.  Gaz.   92;   Taylor  v. 
Archer,   23   Fed.   Cas.  No.   13,778,  8  Blatchf. 
315,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  449;  United  Nickel  Co. 
v.  Keith,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,408,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
44,    Holmes    328,    5    Off.    Gaz.    272;    United 
Nickel  Co.  v.  Manhattan  Brass  Co.,  24  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  14,410,  4  Ban.  &  A.  173,  16  Blatchf. 
68;  Woodward  v.  Morrison,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,008,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  357,  Holmes  124,  2 
Off.  Gaz.  120. 

Equivalent  ingredients  are  those  known  in 
the  art  as  possessing  the  desired  properties. 
Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Davis,  102 
U.  S.  222,  26  L.  ed.  149;  United  Nickel  Co. 
V.  Pendleton,  15  Fed.  739,  21  Blatchf.  226; 
Babcock  v.  Judd,  1  Fed.  408;  Atlantic  Giant- 
Powder  Co.  v.  Mowbray,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  624, 

2  Ban.  &  A.  442,  12  Off.  Gaz.  No.  14,  p.  iii; 
Matthews  v.  Skates,   16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,291, 
1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    602;    Woodward   v.   Mor- 
rison, 30  Fed.  Cas.  No.   18,008,  5   Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.   357,  Holmes   124,  2  Off.  Gaz.   120.     An 
ingredient  may  be  equivalent,  although  sub- 
sequently discovered,   if  it  performs  no  new 
function  in  the  compound.     Read  Holliday  v. 
Schulze-Berge,  78  Fed.  493. 

Where  the  articles  or  compounds  are  the 
same,  there  is  infringement,  although  they 
are  made  by  different  processes.  Maurer  v. 
Dickerson,  113  Fed.  870,  51  C.  C.  A.  494; 
Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Cochrane,  2 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  719,  4  Ban.  &  A.  215,  16 
Blatchf.  155;  Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v. 
Cummins,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  720,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
489 ;  Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Hamil- 
ton Mfg.  Co.,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  721,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  235,  13  Off.  Gaz.  273;  Badische  Anilin, 
etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Higgin,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  722, 

3  Ban.  &  A.  462,  15  Blatckf.  290,  14  Off.  Gaz. 
414.     The  Baur  patent,  No.  451,847,  for  an 


artificial  musk,  in  view  of  the  disclaimer 
filed,  limiting  it  to  the  product  of  the  process 
of  patent  No.  416,710  to  the  same  patentee, 
is  not  infringed  by  a  product  not  shown  to 
have  been  made  by  such  process.  Societe 
Fabriques,  etc.  v.  Lueders,  142  Fed.  753,  74 
C.  C.  A.  15  [affirming  135  Fed.  102]. 

Not  equivalent  ingredients. —  Hurlbut  v. 
Schillinger,  130  U.  S.  456,  9  S.  Ct.  584,  32 
L.  ed.  1011;  New  York  Asbestos  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Ambler  Asbestos  Air-Ceil  Covering  Co., 
103  Fed.  316;  S.  Rauh  v.  Guinzburg,  101 
Fed.  1007,  42  C.  C.  A.  139;  New  Jersey 
Wire-Cloth  Co.  v.  Merritt,  101  Fed.  460, 
41  C.  C.  A.  460;  Tower  v.  Eagle  Pencil 
Co.,  94  Fed.  361,  36  C.  C.  A,  294;  Matheson 
v.  Campbell,  78  Fed.  910,  24  C.  C.  A.  384; 
Johns  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Robertson,  77  Fed.  985,  23 
C.  C.  A.  601;  Seabury  v.  Johnson,  76  Fed. 
456;  Atlantic  Dynamite  Co.  v.  Climax  Powder 
Mfg.  Co.,  72  Fed.  925 ;  Blumenthal  v.  Burrell, 
53  Fed.  105,  3  C.  C.  A.  462  [affirming  43  Fed. 
667]  ;  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  U.  S.  Elec- 
tric Lighting  Co.,  47  Fed.  454  [affirmed  in  52 
Fed.  300,  3  C.  C.  A.  83]  ;  Hood  v.  Boston 
Car  Spring  Co.,  37  Fed.  792;  Western,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  17.  Rosenstock,  30  Fed.  67;  Union 
Tubing  Co.  v.  Patterson,  23  Fed.  79;  Tucker 
V.  Sargent,  9  Fed.  299,  19  Blatchf.  538;  Ash- 
croft  v.  Rollings,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  579,  11  Off. 
Gaz.  879 ;  Baldwin  v.  Schultz,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
804,  9  Blatchf.  494,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  75,  2 
Off.  Gaz.  315,  319;  Clarke  v.  Johnson,  5  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2.855,  4  Ban.  &  A.  403,  16  Blatchf. 
495,  17  Off'.  Gaz.  1401 ;  Goodyear  Dental  Vul- 
canite Co.  v.  Flagg,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,590,  9 
Off.  Gaz.  153;  Tarr  v.  Folsom,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,756,  1  Ban.  &  A.  24,  Holmes  312,  5 
Off.  Gaz.  92;  Union  Paper  Collar  Co.  V. 
White,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,396,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
60,  7  Off.  Gaz.  698,  877,  11  Phila.  (Pa.)  479, 
1  Wkly.  Notes  Cas.  (Pa.)  362;  West  v.  Silver 
Wire,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,425, 
5  Blatchf.  477,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  306;  Won- 
son  v.  Gilman,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,933,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  590,  11  Off.  Gaz.  1011. 

20.  Eastman  v.  Hinckel,   8   Fed.   Cas.  No. 
4,256,  5  Ban.  &  A.  1 ;  Thompson  v.  Jewett,  23 
Fed.  Cas.   No.   13,961;    United  Nickel  Co.  v. 
Manhattan  Brass  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,410, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  173,  16  Blatchf.  68;  Wonson  v. 
Peterson,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,934,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
249,  13  Off.  Gaz.  548. 

21.  Dougherty  v.   Doyle,   63   Fed.   475,   11 
C.  C.  A.  298  [affirming  59  Fed.  470]. 

22.  Otley  v.  Watkins,  36  Fed.  323;  Byam 
v.   Eddy,   4   Fed.   Cas.   No.   2,263,   2   Blatchf. 
521,  24  Vt.  666. 

23.  Otley  v.  Watkins,  36  Fed.  323. 

24.  Substitution   of   materials   or   equiva- 
lents as  involving  invention  see  supra,  III, 
E,  14,  15. 

[XIII,  A,  6,  g,  (I)] 


980     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


evaded  by  substituting  equivalent  elements  for  those  set  forth  in  the  patented 
claim.25  Patentees  of  an  invention  consisting  merely  of  a  combination  of  old 
ingredients  are  entitled  to  equivalents,  by  which  is  meant  that  the  patent  in 
respect  to  each  of  the  respective  ingredients  comprising  the  invention  covers 
every  other  ingredient  which,  in  the  same  arrangement  of  the  parts,  will  perform 
the  same  function,  if  it  was  well  known  as  a  proper  substitute  for  the  one 
described  in  the  specification  at  the  date  of  the  patent.26 

(n)  WHAT  ARE  EQUIVALENTS.     Similarity  or  differences  are  to  be  deter- 
mined not  by  the  names  but  by  what  the  elements  will  do.27     Where  there  is  iden- 


25.  Union  Water  Meter  Co.  v.  Desper,  101 
U.  S.  332,  25  L.  ed.  1024;   Ives  v.  Hamilton, 
92  U.  S.  426,  23  L.  ed.  494;  O'Reilly  v.  Morse, 
15  How.   (U.  S.)   62,  14  L.  ed.  601;  Westing- 
house  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Condit  Electrical 
Mfg.  Co.,   159  Fed.   154;   Dey  Time  Register 
Co.    v.    Syracuse    Time    Recorder    Co.,    152 
Fed.     440;     Benbow-Brammer    Mfg.     Co.     v. 
Simpson     Mfg.     Co.,     132     Fed.     614;     Kin- 
loch   Tel.    Co.   v.    Western   Electric    Co.,    113 
Fed.  652,  51  C.  C.  A.  369;  Lepper  v.  Randall, 
113  Fed.  627,  51.  C.  C.  A.  337;  Fruit-Cleaning 
Co.  f.  Fresno  Home-Packing  Co.,  94  Fed.  845 ; 
Bundy  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Detroit  Time-Register  Co., 
94  Fed.   524,  36  C.  C.  A.  375;   Thompson  v. 
Second   Ave.   Traction   Co.,   93    Fed.    824,   35 
C.  C.  A.  620;  Hart,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Anchor 
Electric   Co.,  92   Fed.  657,  34  C.  C.  A.  606; 
Huntington  Dry-Pulverizer  Co.  v.  Whittaker 
Cement  Co.,  89  Fed.  323;  Salomon  v.  Garvin 
Mach.  Co.,  84  Fed.  195;  Boston,  etc.,  Electric 
St.  R.  Co.  v.  Bemis  Car-Box  Co.,  80  Fed.  287, 
25  C.  C.  A.  420;  Tripp  Giant  Leveler  Co.  v. 
Bresnahan,  70  Fed.  982  [affirmed  in  72  Fed. 
920] ;    McCormick   Harvesting   Mach.    Co.    v. 
Aultman,  69  Fed.  371,  16  C.  C.  A.  259;  Oval 
Wood  Dish   Co.  v.  Sandy  Creek,  New  York, 
Wood  Mfg.  Co.,  60  Fed.  285;  Standard  Fold- 
ing Bed  Co.  v.  Osgood,  58  Fed.  583,  7  C.  C.  A. 
382;  Cutcheon  v.  Herrick,  52  Fed.  147  [modi- 
fied in  60  Fed.  80] ;  Hoe  v.  Cranston,  42  Fed. 
837 ;  Cohansey  Glass  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wharton,  28 
Fed.    189;    Putnam   v.    Hutchinson,    12    Fed. 
131,  11  Biss.  240;  Dederick  v.  Cassell,  9  Fed. 
306;   Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Henry  Stewart  Co., 
8  Fed.  920;  Barrett  v.  Hall,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,047,   1   Mason  447,   1   Robb  Pat.  Cas.  207; 
Foster   v.   Moore,    9   Fed.   Cas.   No.    4,978,    1 
Curt.  279;   May  v.  Johnson  County,  16  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,334;   Rice  v.  Heald,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,752;  Sloat  v.  Spring,  22  Fed.  Cas,  No. 
12,948a;    Consolidated    Car    Heating    Co.    v. 
Came,   [1903]   A.  C.  509,  72  L.  J.  P.  C.  110, 
89  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  224;  Palmer  v.  Wagstaff, 
2  C.  L.  R.  1052,  9  Exch.  494,  23  L.  J.  Exch. 
217;  Ellington  v.  Clark,  58  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
818;    Woodward    v.    Clement,    10    Ont.    348; 
Patrice  v.  Sylvester,   23   Grant  Ch.    (U.  C.) 
573. 

Combining  parts  of  two  patented  struc- 
tures which  results  in  changing  one  type  of 
machine  into  the  other  is  an  infringement. 
National  Cash  Register  Co.  v.  Grobet,  153 
Fed.  905,  82  C.  C.  A.  651. 

26.  Imhaeuser  v.  Buerk,  101  U.  S.  647,  25 
L.  ed.  945. 

27.  Columbia  Wire  Co.  v.  Kokomo  Steel, 
etc.,  Co.,  139  Fed.  578 ;  Stetson  v.  Herreshoff 

[XIII.  A,  6.  g,  (I)] 


Mfg.  Co.,  113  Fed.  952;  Western  Electric  Co. 
V.  Home  Tel.  Co.,  85  Fed.  649;  In  re  Bough- 
ton,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,696,  McArthur  Pat. 
Cas.  278;  Smith  v.  Downing,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,036,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  64. 

Substantial  and  not  technical  identity  is 
the  test.  Sayre  v.  Scott,  55  Fed.  971,  5  C.  C. 
A.  366;  Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Western  Elec- 
tric Light,  etc.,  Co.,  43  Fed.  533;  Delong  v. 
Bickford,  13  Fed.  32;  Whipple  v.  Middlesex 
Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,520,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  41. 

Equivalents  illustrated. —  Lidgerwood  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Lambert  Hoisting  Engine  Co.,  150  Fed. 
364;  Robins  Conveying  Belt  Co.  v.  American 
Road  Mach.  Co.,  145  Fed.  923,  76  C.  C.  A. 
461  [affirming  142  Fed.  221];  Bredin  v.  Solm- 
son,  132  Fed.  161  [affirmed  in  136  Fed.  187, 
69  C.  C.  A.  203] ;  Lepper  v.  Randall,  113  Fed. 
627,  51  C.  C.  A.  337;  Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.  t>. 
Aluminum  Stopper  Co.,  108  Fed.  845,  48 
C.  C.  A.  72  [reversing  100  Fed.  849] ;  Dowa- 
giac  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Smith,  108  Fed.  67 ;  Kampfe 
v.  Reichard,  105  Fed.  624;  Owatonna  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Fargo,  94  Fed.  519;  Beach  v.  Hobbs,  92 
Fed.  146,  34  C.  C.  A.  248  [modifying  82  Fed. 
916]  ;  Heap  v.  Greene,  91  Fed.  792,  34  C.  C.  A. 
86  [reversing  75  Fed.  405]  ;  Huntington  Dry- 
Pulverizer  Co.  v.  Whittaker  Cement  Co.,  89 
Fed.  323;  Heap  v.  Tremont,  etc.,  Mills,  82 
Fed.  449,  27  C.  C.  A.  316;  C.  T.  Ham  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  R.  E.  Dietz  Co.,  69  Fed.  841,  13 
C.  C.  A.  687  [affirming  58  Fed.  367,  13 
C.  C.  A.  687] ;  H.  Tibbe,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  r. 
Missouri  Cob-Pipe  Co.,  62  Fed.  158;  Ballard 
v.  McCluskey,  58  Fed.  880;  Winchester  Re- 
peating Arms  Co.  v.  American  Buckle,  etc., 
Co.,  54  Fed.  703;  Riker  v.  Crocker- Wheeler 
Motor  Co.,  54  Fed.  519;  Consolidated  Pied- 
mont Cable  Co.  v.  Pacific  Cable  R.  Co.,  53 
Fed.  385,  3  C.  C.  A.  570 ;  Pacific  Cable  R.  Co. 
v.  Butte  City  St.  R.  Co.,  52  Fed.  863  [af- 
firmed in  60  Fed.  90,  8  C.  C.  A.  484] ;  Munici- 
pal Signal  Co.  v.  Gamewell  Fire-Alarm  Tel. 
Co.,  52  Fed.  459;  Norton  v.  Jensen,  49  Fed. 
859,  1  C.  C.  A.  452;  Creamery  Package  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Elgin  Co-operative  Butter  Tub  Co.,  43 
Fed.  892 ;  Harmon  v.  Struthers,  43  Fed.  437 ; 
Rapid  Service  Store  R.  Co.  v.  Taylor,  43  Fed. 
249;  Reed  v.  Smith,  40  Fed.  882;  Simonds 
Counter  Mach.  Co.  v.  Knox,  39  Fed.  702; 
Root  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  39  Fed.  281 ;  Cole- 
man  Hardware  Co.  v.  Kellogg,  39  Fed.  39; 
Pullman's  Palace-Car  Co.  v.  Wagner  Palace- 
Car  Co.,  38  Fed.  416;  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v. 
Buttrick,  37  Fed.  794;  Bradley,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Charles  Parker  Co.,  35  Fed.  748 ;  Casey 
v.  Butterfield,  35  Fed.  77;  Moras  v.  Ufford, 


PATENTS  [SOCye.]     981 

tity  of  operation  there  is  equivalency.28     Mere  differences  of  form  are  immaterial 


34  Fed.  37;  Thaxter  v.  Boston  Electric  Co., 
32  Fed.  833;  Royer  v.  Coupe,  29  Fed.  358; 
Pennsylvania  Diamond-Drill  Co.  v.  Simpson, 
29  Fed.  288;  Hoyt  v.  Slocum,  26  Fed.  329; 
Norton  Door- Check,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elliott  Pneu- 
matic Door-Check  Co.,  26  Fed.  320;  Adams, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Excelsior  Oil-Stove  Mfg.  Co., 
26  Fed.  270;  Parker  v.  Montpelier  Carriage 
Co.,  23  Fed.  886 ;  Hartford  Woven-Wire  Mat- 
tress Co.  v.  Peerless  Wire  Mattress  Co.,  23 
Fed.  587,  23  Blatchf.  227;  Parker  v.  Stow, 
23  Fed.  252;  Maxheimer  v.  Meyer,  9  Fed. 
460,  20  Blatchf.  17;  Brainard  v.  Pulsifer,  7 
Fed.  349;  Aiken  v.  Dolan,  1  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
110,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  197;  American  Whip 
Co.  v.  Lombard,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  319,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  598,  4  Cliff.  495,  14  Off.  Gaz.  900 ;  Blake 
v.  Robertson,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,500,  11 
Blatchf.  237,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  509;  Bu- 
chanan v.  Howland,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,074, 

5  Blatchf.   151,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  341;   Cook 
v.   Howard,   6   Fed.    Cas.   No.   3,160,   4   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  269 ;  Crehore  v.  Norton,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,381;  Doughty  v.  West,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,028,  6  Blatchf.  429,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  580; 
Gibson  v.  Harris,   10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,396,   1 
Blatchf.  167,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  115;  Gibson  t?. 
Van  Dresar,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,402,  1  Blatchf. 
532,  Fish.  Pat.   Rep.   369;    Harwood  v.  Mill 
River    Woolen    Mfg.    Co.,    11    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
6,187,    3    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    526;    Johnsen    v. 
Fassman,    13    Fed.    Cas.    No.    7,365,    5    Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  471,  1  Woods  138,  2  Off.  Gaz.  94; 
Knox  v.  Loweree,   14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,910,   1 
Ban.  &  A.  589,  6  Off.  Gaz.  802;   Maynadier 
v.   Tenney,    16    Fed.    Cas.   No.   9,350,   2   Ban. 

6  A.   615;   Megraw  v.  Carroll,   16  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,3936,  5  Ban.  &  A.  324 ;  Myers  v.  Frame, 
17    Fed.    Cas.   No.   9,991,    8    Blatchf.    446,    4 
Fish.     Pat.     Cas.     493     [reversed    on    other 
grounds  in  94  U.  S.  187,  24  L.  ed.  34] ;  Par- 
ker v.  Remhoff,    18   Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,747,  3 
Ban.  &  A.  550,  17  Blatchf.  206,  14  Off.  Gaz. 
601;    Tilghinan  v.   Morse,   23  Fed.    Cas.   No. 
14,044,    9    Blatchf.    421,    5    Fish.    Pat.    Cas. 
323,    1   Off.  Gaz.   574;   Waterbury  Brass  Co. 
v.  Miller,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,254,  9  Blatchf. 
77,   5   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   48;   Waterbury  Brass 
Co.  17.  New  York,  etc.,  Brass  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,256,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  43;  Weston  v. 
Nash,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,454,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
40,  Holmes  488,  7  Off.  Gaz.  1096;  Woolcocks 
17.  Many,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,024,  9  Blatchf. 
139,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  72;  Berdan  Fire-Arms 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  25  Ct.  Cl.  355. 

Not  equivalents. —  Cimiotti  Unhairing  Co. 
v.  American  Fur  Refining  Co.,  198  U.  S.  399, 
25  S.  Ct.  697,  49  L.  ed.  1100  {.affirming  123 
Fed.  869,  59  C.  C.  A.  357];  Black  Diamond 
Coal-Min.  Co.  17.  Excelsior  Coal  Co.,  156  U.  S. 
Oil,  15  S.  Ct.  482,  39  L.  ed.  553;  Gates  Iron 
Works  v.  Fraser,  153  U.  S.  332,  14  S.  Ct. 
883,  38  L.  ed.  734;  Ball,  etc.,  Fastener  Co. 
17.  Kraetzer,  150  U.  S.  Ill,  14  S.  Ct.  48,  37 
L.  ed.  1019;  Weatherhead  v.  Coupe,  147  U.  S. 
322,  13  S.  Ct.  312,  37  L.  ed.  188;  Joyce  ». 
Chillicothe  Foundry,  etc.,  Co.,  127  U.  S.  557, 
8  S.  Ct.  1311,  32  L.  ed.  171;  Forncrook  17. 
Root,  127  U.  S.  176,  8  S.  Ct.  1247,  32  L.  ed. 


97 ;  Matthews  17.  Iron-Clad  Mfg.  Co.,  124  U.  S. 
347,  8  S.  Ct.  639,  31  L.  ed.  477;  Electric  R. 
Signal  Co.  v.  Hall  R.  Signal  Co.,  114  U.  S. 
87,  5  S.  Ct.  1069,  29  L.  ed.  96;  Blake  17.  San 
Francisco,  113  U.  S.  679,  5  S.  Ct.  692,  28 
L.  ed.  1070;  L.  E.  Waterman  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Cutchean,  127  Fed.  1020,  61  C.  C.  A.  653; 
Evans  v.  Newark  Rivet  Works,  121  Fed. 
133  [affirmed  in  126  Fed.  492,  61  C.  C.  A. 
474] ;  L.  E.  Waterman  Co.  v.  Forsyth,  121 
Fed.  107  [affirmed  in  128  Fed.  926,  63  C.  C. 
A.  648] ;  Wellman  t?.  Midland  Steel  Co.,  106 
Fed.  221;  Lepper  17.  Randall,  105  Fed.  975; 
McCully  17.  Kny-Scheerer  Co.,  103  Fed.  648; 
Dodge  v.  Ohio  Valley  Pulley  Works,  101  Fed. 
581;  Rauh  v.  Guinzburg,  95  Fed.  151;  John- 
son Electric  Service  Co.  v.  Powers  Regulator 
Co.,  85  Fed.  863,  29  C.  C.  A.  459;  Norton  v. 
Jensen,  81  Fed.  494;  Engle  Sanitary,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Elwood,  73  Fed.  484;  Wells  v.  Curtis,  66 
Fed.  318,  13  C.  C.  A.  494;  Whitcomb  Envelope 
Co.  17.  Logan,  etc.,  Envelope  Co.,  63  Fed. 
982;  Ball,  etc.,  Fastener  Co.  v.  Ball  Glove 
Fastening  Co.,  58  Fed.  818,  7  C.  C.  A.  498; 
Detwiler  v.  Bosler,  58  Fed.  249,  55  Fed.  660; 
Morss  v.  Domestic  Sewing-Mach.  Co.,  55  Fed. 
79,  5  C.  C.  A.  47;  Holloway  i?.  Dow,  54  Fed. 
511;  Dudley  E.  Jones  Co.  17.  Munger  Im- 
proved Cotton  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  49  Fed.  61, 
1  C.  C.  A.  158;  Hitchcock  v.  Wanzer  Lamp 
Co.,  45  Fed.  362;  Sackett  17.  Smith,  42  Fed. 
846;  Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Julien  Electric 
Co.,  41  Fed.  679;  Ligowsky  Clay-Pigeon  Co. 
V.  Peoria  Target  Co.,  35  Fed.  758;  Eastern 
Paper-Bag  Co.  v-  Standard  Paper-Bag  Co., 
29  Fed.  787;  McFarland  v.  Deere,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  22  Fed.  781;  Deis  v.  Doll,  21  Fed.  523; 
Lloyd  v.  Miller,  19  Fed.  915 ;  Field  v.  Ireland, 
19  Fed.  835;  Schmidt  17.  Freese,  12  Fed.  563; 
Field  i?.  De  Comean,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,765, 
5  Ban.  £  A.  40,  17  Off.  Gaz.  568  [affirmed  in 
116  U.  S.  187,  6  S.  Ct.  363,  29  L.  ed.  596]; 
Forsyth  v.  Clapp,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,949,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  528,  Holmes  278,  4  Off.  Gaz. 
527;  Sickles  v.  Youngs,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,838,  3  Blatchf.  293;  Sickles  v.  Evans,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,839,  2  Cliff.  203,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  417;  Smith  v.  Marshall,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,077,  2  Ban.  &  A.  371,  10  Off. 
Gaz.  375;  Wheeler  v.  Simpson,  29  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,500,  1  Ban.  &  A.  420,  6  Off.  Gaz.  435. 

28.  Westinghouse  Mach.  Co.  v.  Press  Pub. 
Co.,  127  Fed.  822  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  135  Fed.  767,  68  C.  C.  A.  469]  ;  Anderson 
17.  Collins,  122  Fed.  451,  58  C.  C.  A.  669; 
Cimiotti  Unhairing  Co.  17.  Nearseal  Unhairing 
Co.,  115  Fed.  507,  53  C.  C.  A.  161  [affirming 
113  Fed.  588];  Powell  v.  Leicester  Mills  Co., 
108  Fed.  386,  47  C.  C.  A.  416;  Rosenblatt  17. 
Fraser  Tablet  Triturate  Mfg.  Co.,  106  Fed. 
733;  Diamond  State  Iron  Co.  17.  Goldie,  84 
Fed.  972,  28  C.  C.  A.  589;  Bowers  v.  Von 
Schmidt,  63  Fed.  572. 

On  the  other  hand  literal  application  of 
claims  does  not  make  infringement  where  the 
principle  of  operation  is  different.  Boyden 
Power-Brake  Co.  17.  Westinghouse,  170  U.  S. 
537,  18  S.  Ct.  707,  42  L.  ed.  1136  [reversing 
70  Fed.  816,  17  C.  C.  A.  430] ;  Standard  Com- 

[XIII,  A,  6,  ft  (II)] 


982     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


if  the  function  and  result  are  the  same  ;a  and  a  part  is  no  less  equivalent  because 
it  performs  additional  functions.80  Parts  are  also  equivalents  whether  made 
integral  or  separate.31  Parts  are  not  equivalents  if  they  do  not  operate  to  per- 
form the  same  function.32  They  must  perform  substantially  the  same  function  in 
substantially  the  same  way  to  produce  the  same  result,33  or  where  reorganization 
is  necessary  to  effect  the  substitution.84  Substitution  of  a  material  not  known  as 
an  equivalent  is  not  infringement.* 

(in)  NECESSITY  FOR  KNOWLEDGE  OF  EQUIVALENT  AT  DATE  OF  PATENT. 
To  constitute  infringement  by  the  substitution  of  equivalents,  it  is  essential  that 
the  equivalent  was  known  at  the  date  of  the  patent  as  a  proper  substitute.36  . 


puting  Scale  Co.  i?.  Computing  Scale  Co.,  126 
Fed.  630,  61  C.  C.  A.  541. 

29.  Hillard    v.    Fisher    Book    Typewriter, 
159    Fed.   439;    Eck   v.   Kutz,    132    Fed.   758; 
Dowagiac  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Minnesota  Moline  Plow 
Co.,  118  Fed.  136,  55  C.  C.  A.  86;  Adams  Co. 
v.    Schreiber,   etc.,   Mfg.   Co.,    Ill    Fed.    182; 
Huntington  Dry-Pulverizer  Co.  v.  Whittaker 
Cement  Co.,  89  Fed.  323;  Adams  v.  Keystone 
Mfg.  Co.,  41  Fed.  595;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
American   Zylonite   Co.,   31    Fed.   904;   U.   S. 
Metallic  Packing  Co.  v.  Tripp,  31   Fed.  350; 
Adams  v.  BridgeAvater  Iron  Co.,  26  Fed.  324; 
Shannon  v.  J.  M.  W.  Jones  Stationery,  etc., 
Co.,  9  Fed.  205,  10  Biss.  498;  Adams  v.  Joliet 
Mfg.   Co.,    1    Fed.   Cas.  No.  56,  3   Ban.  &  A. 
1,  12  Off.  Gaz.  93 ;  Smith  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed. 
Cas.   Nos.    13,057,    13,059,    1    Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
537. 

30.  Universal  Brush  Co.  v.  Sonn,  146  Fed. 
517    [reversed  on  other  grounds  in   154  Fed. 
665,  83  C.  C.  A.  422];   Comptograph  Co.  v. 
Mechanical  Accountant  Co.,  145  Fed.  331,  75 
C.  C.  A.  205;   Atlantic  Giant-Powder  Co.  v. 
Goodyear,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  623,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
161,  13  Off.  Gaz.  45;  Foss  v.  Herbert,  9  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,957,  1  Biss.  121,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
31;  Sarven  v.  Hall,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,369, 
9  Blatchf.  524,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  415,   1  Off. 
Gaz.    437;    Wheeler    v.    Clipper   Mower,    etc., 
Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,493,  10  Blatchf.  181, 
6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1,  2  Off.  Gaz.  442. 

31.  Standard    Caster,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Caster 
Socket  Co.,    113   Fed.   162,  51   C.   C.  A.    109; 
Bundy  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Detroit  Time-Register  Co., 
94  Fed.  524,  36  C.  C.  A.  375;  Brown  v.  Reed 
Mfg.  Co.,  81  Fed.  48 ;  Fryer  v.  New  York  Mut. 
L.  Ins.  Co.,  30  Fed.  787 ;  Baldwin  v.  Bernard, 
2   Fed.   Cas.  No.   797,  9  Blatchf.  509  note,  5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  442,  2  Off.  Gaz.  320;  Baldwin 
v.   Schultz,   2   Fed.  Cas.  No.  804,  9   Blatchf. 
494,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  75,  2  Off.  Gaz.  315,  319. 

32.  Hubbell  v.  U.  S.,  179  U.  S.  86,  21  S.  Ct. 
28,  45  L.  ed.  100;  Dey  Time  Register  Co.  v. 
Syracuse   Time  Recorder   Co.,   152   Fed.  440; 
Campbell  Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Duplex 
Printing-Press  Co.,  86  Fed.  315;  Scarborough 
v.  Neff ,  75  Fed.  579 ;  Engle  Sanitary,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Elwood,    73    Fed.   484;    Binder  v.   Atlanta 
Cotton  Seed  Oil  Mills,  73  Fed.  480;  Richard- 
son V.  American  Pin  Co.,  73  Fed.  476;  Jack- 
son v.   Birmingham  Brass   Co.,  72   Fed.   269 
[affirmed  in  79  Fed.  801,  25  C.  C.  A.   196]  ; 
New  York  Paper-Bag  Mac'h,,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hol- 
lingsworth,  etc.,  Co.,  56  Fed.  224,  5  C.  C.  A. 
490    [affirming    48    Fed.    562];    Williams    v. 
Steam-Gauge,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed.  322;  Bortree 

[XIII,  A,  6,  g,  (ll)] 


v.  Jackson,  43  Fed.  136;   Peninsular  Novelty 

Co.  v.  American  Shoe-Tip  Co.,  39  Fed.  791; 

Huntington    v.    Hartford    Heel-Plate    Co.,    36 

Fed.  689 ;  Matthews  v.  Chambers,  6  Fed.  874 ; 

Blake  v.  Rawson,   3   Fed.   Cas.   No.    1,499,   6 

Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   74,  Holmes  200,  3   Off.  Gaz. 

122;  Bridge  v.  Brown,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,858, 

6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  236,  Holmes  205,  3  Off.  Gaz. 

121;  Brown  v.  Rubber  Step  Mfg.  Co.,  4  Fed. 

Cas.  No.  2,028,  3  Ban.  &  A.  232,  13  Off.  Gaz. 

369. 

33.  Rowell   v.    Lindsay,    113    U.    S.    97,    5 

S.   Ct.  507,  28  L.   ed.   906    [affirming  6   Fed. 

290,  10  Biss.  217];  0.  H.  Jewell  Filter  Co. 
v.  Jackson,  140  Fed.  340,  72  C.  C.  A.  304; 
International  Mfg.  Co.  v.  H.  F.  Brammer  Mfg. 

Co.,  138  Fed.  396,  71  C.  C.  A.  633;  Kinloch 
Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Electric  Co.,  113  Fed. 
652,  51  C.  C.  A.  362;  Wilt  v.  Grier,  5  Fed. 
450;  Burden  v.  Corning,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,143,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  477 ;  Johnson  v.  Root, 
13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,410,  2  Cliff.  637;  May  v. 
Johnson  County,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,334. 

Similarity  of  result  is  not  sufficient. —  Rich 
v.  Baldwin,  133  Fed.  920,  66  C.  C.  A.  464; 
Diamond  Drill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelly,  120  Fed. 
289;  Union  Steam-Pump  Co.  v.  Battle  Creek 
Steam-Pump  Co.,  104  Fed.  337,  43  C.  C.  A. 
560;  Powell  v.  Leicester  Mills  Co.,  103  Fed. 
476  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  108  Fed. 
386,  47  C.  C.  A.  416]  ;  Wilson  v.  McCormick 
Harvesting  Mach.  Co.,  92  Fed.  167,  34  C.  C.  A. 
280;  Schmidt  v.  Freese,  12  Fed.  563. 

34.  American  Pneumatic  Tool  Co.  v.  Phila- 
delphia  Pneumatic   Tool   Co.,    123    Fed.   891; 
Pittsburg  Meter  Co.  v.  Pittsburg  Supply  Co., 
109  Fed.  644,  48  C.  C.  A.  580;   Crompton  v. 
Belknap    Mills,   30    Fed.    Cas.    No.    18,285,   3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  536. 

35.  Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Levin- 
stein,  24   Ch.   D.    156,  52  L.   J.    Ch.   704,  48 
L.    T.    Rep.    N.    S.    822,   31    Wkly.    Rep.   913 
[affirmed  in  12  App.  Cas.  710,  57  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  853]. 

36.  Imhaeuser  v.  Buerk,  101  U.  S.  647,  25 
L,   ed.    945;    Seymour   v.   Osborne,    11    Wall. 
(U.  S.)  516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Magic  Light  Co.  V. 
Economy  Gas-Lamp  Co.,  97  Fed.  87,  38  C.  C.  A. 
56 ;    Jones    Co.    v.   Munger    Improved   Cotton 
Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  49  Fed.  61,  1  C.  C.  A.  158; 
Rowell  ?-.  Lindsay,  6  Fed.  290,   10  Biss.  217 
[affirmed  in   11 3  "U.  S.  97,  5  S.  Ct.  507,  28 
L.  ed.  906] ;  King  V.  Louisville  Cement  Co., 
14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,798,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  336, 
4  Off.  Gaz.  181 ;  Sands  v.  Wardwell,  21  Fed. 
Cas.  No.    12,306,   3  Cliff.  277;   Union  Sugar 
Refinery   v.    Matthiesson,    24    Fed.    Cas.    No. 


PATENTS, 


[30  Cye.]     983 


h.  Omission  of  Parts.37  A  claim  is  not  infringed  when  an  element  included 
therein  is  omitted  and  no  equivalent  is  used  j38  and  the  rule  applies,  although  the 
element  is  not  really  essential.39  However,  the  omission  of  features  not  claimed 
does  not  avoid  infringement.40 


14,399,  3  Cliff.  639,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  600; 
Webster  v.  New  Brunswick  Carpet  Co.,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,337,  1  Ban.  &  A.  84,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  522;  Welling  v.  Rubber-Coated  Harness 
Trimming  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,382,  1 
Ban.  &  A.  282,  7  Off.  Gaz.  606. 

37.  Omission  of  parts  as  involving  invention 
see  supra,  III,  E,  17. 

38.  Black   Diamond   Coal-Min.    Co.   v.   Ex- 
celsior   Coal   Co.,    156   U.   S.   611,    15    S.   Ct. 
482,    39    L.    ed.    553;    Phoenix    Caster   Co.   v. 
Spiegel,  133  U.  S.  360,  10  S.  Ct.  409,  33  L.  ed. 
663;  Peters  v.  Active  Mfg.  Co.,  129  U.  S.  530, 
9  S.  Ct.  389,  32  L.  ed.  738 ;  Prouty  v.  Ruggles, 
16  Pet.    (U.  S.)    336,   10  L.  ed.  985;   Mallon 
v.  Gregg,  137  Fed.  68,  69  C.  C.  A.  48;  West- 
inghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cutter  Electric, 
etc.,    Co.,    136    Fed.    217    [reversed   on   other 
grounds  in  143   Fed.  966,  75  C.  C.  A.  540]  ; 
Levy  v.  Harris,  124  Fed.  69  [affirmed  in  130 
Fed.  711,  65  C.  C.  A.   113];   Mayo  Knitting 
Mach.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Jenckes  Mfg.  Co.,  121  Fed. 
110    [affirmed  in   133   Fed.  527,  66  C.  C.  A. 
557]  ;  American  School-Furniture  Co.  v.  J.  M. 
Sauder  Co.,  113  Fed.  576;  Moore  v.  Eggers, 
107    Fed.   491,   46   C.   C.   A.   425;    Parsons  v. 
Minneapolis    Threshing-Mcich.    Co.,    106    Fed. 
941;    National    Hollow    Brake-Beam    Co.    V. 
Interchangeable    Brake-Beam    Co.,    106    Fed. 
693,  45  C.  C.  A.  544;  Thomson  Meter  Co.  v. 
National  Meter  Co.,   106  Fed.  519;   Keyes  v. 
United   Indurated   Fibre  Co.,   104   Fed.    1006, 
44  C.  C.  A.  265;  Goodyear  Shoe  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Spaulding,   101    Fed.   990;    Crown  Cork,  etc., 
Co.  17.  Aluminum  Stopper  Co.,  100  Fed.  849; 
Mesick  v.  Moore,  100  Fed.  845;  Ryan  v.  Run- 
yon,   93   Fed.   970,    36   C.   C.    A.   36;    Regina 
Music-Box  Co.  v.  Paillard,  85  Fed.  644 ;  Keyes 
v.   United  Indurated   Fibre  Co.,  82   Fed.   32; 
Kansas  City  Hay-Press  Co.  v.  Devol,  81  Fed. 
726,  26  C.   C.  A.  578;  Roemer  v.  Peddie,  81 
Fed.  380,  26  C.  C.  A.  440;  Excelsior  Coal  Co. 
I?.  Oregon  Imp.  Co.,  79  Fed.  355,  24  C.  C.  A. 
640.;  Carter  Mach.  Co.  v.  Hanes,  78  Fed.  346, 

24  C.  C.   A.   128;    Adams  Electric  R.  Co.  v. 
Lindell  R.  Co.,  77  Fed.  432,  23  C.  C.  A.  223 ; 
Murphy  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Excelsior  Car-Roof  Co., 
76    Fed.    965,   22    C.    C.  A.   658;   Wheaton   v. 
Norton,  70  Fed.  833,  17  C.  C.  A.  447;  Adee 
17.    J.    L.    Mott   Iron-Works,   55    Fed.    876,    5 
C.  C.  A.  288;  Baumer  v.  Will,  53  Fed.  373; 
Adee  v.  J.  L.  Mott  Iron-Works,  46  Fed.  77; 
Mack   v.   Levy,   43    Fed.    69;    Sun  Vapor   St. 
Light  Co.  v.  Western  St.  Ligh't  Co.,  41  Fed. 
43;     Catchpole    v.    Pulsifer,    35     Fed.     766; 
Ligowski    Clay-Pigeon    Co.   v.    Peoria   Target 
Co.,   35   Fed.  755;   Kidd  v.  Ransom,  35  Fed. 
588;  Wight  Fireproofing  Co.  17.  Chicago  Fire- 
proof Co.,  35  Fed.  582 ;   Wheeler  v.  Hart,  32 
Fed.  78  [affirmed  in  140  U.  S.  704,  11  S.  Ct. 
1031,   35   L.   ed.   602]  ;    Tobey   Furniture   Co. 
V.   Colby,   26   Fed.    100;    Sheeder  17.   Shannon, 

25  Fed.    824    [affirmed  in   131    U.    S.    447,   9 
S.  Ct.   803,  33   L.   ed.   224];    Taft  v.   Steere, 
19  Fed.  600;  Snow  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co., 


18  Fed.  602  [affirmed  in  121  U.  S.  617,  7 
S.  Ct.  1343,  30  L.  ed.  1004]  ;  National  Pump 
Cylinder  Co.  v.  Simmons  Hardware  Co.,  18 
Fed.  324,  5  McCrary  592;  Doane,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.  17.  Smith,  15  Fed.  459;  Fay  v.  Preble,  14 
Fed.  652,  11  Biss.  422;  Morgan  Elevated  R. 
Co.  17.  Pullman,  14  Fed.  648 ;  Goss  i;.  Cameron, 
14  Fed.  576,  11  Biss.  389;  Hayes  v.  Seton,  12 
Fed.  120,  20  Blatchf.  484;  Onderdonk  v.  Fan- 
ning, 9  Fed.  106,  19  Blatchf.  363;  Rowell  17. 
Lindsay,  6  Fed.  290,  10  Biss.  217  [affirmed 
in  113  U.  S.  97,  5  S.  Ct.  507,  28  L.  ed.  906] ; 
Baldwin  v.  Schultz,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  804,  9 
Blatchf.  494,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  75,  2  Off.  Gaz. 
315,  319;  Bliss  v.  Haight,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,548,  7  Blatchf.  7,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  621; 
Brown  v.  Hinkley,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,012,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  370,  3  Off.  Gaz.  384;  Burr 
17.  Cowperthwait,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,188,  4 
Blatchf.  163 ;  Case  v.  Brown,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,488,  1  Biss.  382,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  268; 
Craig  v.  Smith,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,339,  1  Ban. 
&  A.  556.  4  Dill.  349  [affirmed  in  100  U.  S. 
226,  25  L.  ed.  577];  Dodge  v.  Card,  7  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,951,  1  Bond  393,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
116;  Evarts  v.  Ford,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,574,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  587,  5  Off.  Gaz.  58;  Florence 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Boston  Diatite  Co.,  9  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  4,882,  1  Ban.  &  A.  396,  Holmes  415,  6 
Off.  Gaz.  728;  Hailes  v.  Van  Wormer,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,904,  7  Blatchf.  443  [affirmed 
in  20  Wall.  353,  22  L.  ed.  241];  Hale  17. 
Stimpson,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,915,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  565;  Haselden  v.  Ogden,  11  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,190,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  378;  Hayden 
v.  Suffolk  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,261, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  86  [affirmed  in  3  Wall.  315, 
18  L.  ed.  76] ;  Hill  v.  Houghton,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,493,  1  Ban.  &  A.  291,  6  Off.  Gaz.  3; 
Roberts  v.  Harnden,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,903, 
2  Cliff.  500;  Sands  v.  Wardwell,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,306,  3  Cliff.  277;  Sanford  v.  'Herri- 
mack  Hat  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,313,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  408,  4  Cliff.  404,  10  Off.  Gaz.  466 ; 
Smith  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,060, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  97;  Sweetser  17.  Helms,  23 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,689,  2  Ban.  &  A.  263,  10 
Off.  Gaz.  4 ;  Seed  17.  Higgins,  8  H.  L.  Cas.  550, 
6  Jur.  N.  S.  1264,  30  L.  J.  Q.  B.  314,  3  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  101,  11  Eng.  Reprint  544. 

39.  Wright  v.  Yuengling,  155  U.  S.  47,  15 
S.  Ct.   1,  39  L.  ed.  64;  Henry  Huber  Co.  17. 
J.  L.  Mott  Iron  Works,  113  Fed.  599;  Elfelt 
v.  Steinhart,  11  Fed.  896,  6  Sawy.  480;  Dodge 
v.  Fearey,  8  Fed.  329. 

In  Canada  the  omission  of  essential  parts 
avoids  infringement.  Consolidated  Car  Heat- 
ing Co.  v.  Came,  [1903]  A.  C.  509,  72  L.  J. 
P.  C.  110,  89  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  224.  Omission 
will  not  avoid  infringement  where  the  essence 
is  taken.  Consolidated  Car  Heating  Co.  V. 
Came,  18  Quebec  Super.  Ct.  44. 

40.  Letson  v.  Alaska  Packers'  Assoc.,   130 
Fed.    129,   64   C.    C.   A.   463    [modifying    119 
Fed.  599];    Hobbs  Mfg.  Co.  17.  Gooding,   111 

[XIII,  A,  6,  h] 


984:     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


i.  Addition  of  Parts.41  The  addition  of  one  or  more  parts  or  features  to  the 
construction  claimed  securing  additional  functions  will  not  avoid  infringement.42 
There  is  no  infringement,  however,  where  the  combination  claimed  is  changed  or 
destroyed  by  the  addition  making  a  new  combination.43 

j.  Transposition  of  Elements!44  A  mere  change  in  the  location  of  an  element 
will  not  avoid  infringement  where  the  operation  is  substantially  the  same,45  but  a 


Fed.  403,  49  C.  C.  A.  414;  Brammer  v. 
Schroeder,  106  Fed.  918,  46  C.  C.  A.  41; 
National  Hollow  Brake-Beam  Co.  v.  Inter- 
changeable Brake-Beam  Co.,  106  Fed.  693,  45 
C.  C.  A.  544;  Bresnahan  v.  Tripp  Giant 
Leveller  Co.,  102  Fed.  899,  43  C.  C.  A.  48; 
Boston  v.  Allen,  91  Fed.  248,  33  C.  C.  A.  485; 
Mast  v.  Dempster  Mills  Mfg.  Co.,  82  Fed. 
327,  27  C.  C.  A.  191;  National  Cash-Register 
Co.  v.  American  Cash-Register  Co.,  53  Fed. 
367,  3  C.  C.  A.  559;  American  Automaton 
Weighing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Blauvelt,  50  Fed.  213; 
National  Cash-Register  Co.  v.  Boston  Cash 
Indicator,  etc.,  Co.,  45  Fed.  481;  National 
Car-Brake  Shoe  Co.  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  4  Fed.  219,  9  Biss.  503;  Francis  v. 
Mellor,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,039,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  153,  1  Off.  Gaz.  48,  8  Phila.  (Pa.)  157; 
Jurgensen  v.  Magnin,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,586, 
9  Blatchf.  294,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  237;  Mac- 
donald  v.  Shepard,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,767, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  343. 

41.  Duplication  of  parts  as  involving  in- 
vention see  supra,  III,  E,  11. 

42.  Rees  v.  Gould,  15  Wall.    (U.  S.)    187, 
21  L.  ed.  39;  Walker  Patent  Pivoted  Bin  Co. 
v.  Miller,  132  Fed.  823  [affirmed  in  139  Fed. 
134,    71    C.    C.   A.   398];    Dowagiac  Mfg.   Co. 
v.  Brennan,  118  Fed.  143  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  127  Fed.  143,  62  C.  C.  A.  257]  ; 
Brislin   v.  Carnegie  Steel  Co.,    118   Fed.   579 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  124  Fed.  213, 
59  C.   C.  A.  651];   Powell  v.  Leicester  Mills 
Co.,  108  Fed.  386,  47  C.  C.  A.  416  [reversing 
103  Fed.  476] ;   Newton  v.  McGuire,  97  Fed. 
614;    Consolidated  Fastener  Co.  v.  Hays,  95 
Fed.    168;    Jones    v.    Holman,    58    Fed.    973 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  61    Fed.    105, 
680,    9    C.    C.    A.    385]  ;    Heaton-Peninsular 
Button-Fastener    Co.   v.   Elliott   Button-Fast- 
ener Co.,  58  Fed.  220;  Williames  v.  Barnard, 
41  Fed.  358;   Baldwin  v.  T.  G.  Conway  Co., 
35  Fed.  519;   Filley  v.  Littlefield  Stove  Co., 
30   Fed.   434;    Wirt  v.   Brown,   30   Fed.   188; 
Blake  v.   Robertson,   3    Fed.   Cas.   No.    1,501, 
6  Off.   Gaz.   297    [affirmed  in  94  U.   S.   728, 
24  L.  ed.   245]  ;    Cleveland  v.   Towle,  5   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,888,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  525;  Earle 
v.   Harlow,    8    Fed.    Cas.    No.    4,246,    2    Ban. 
&   A.   264,  9  Off.  Gaz.    1018;   Imlay  v.  Nor- 
wich, etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,012,  4 
Blatchf.  227,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  340;  Johnson 
v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,411,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  351;  Magic  Ruffle  Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co., 
16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,949,  2  Ban.  &  A.   152,  13 
Blatchf.     151,    8    Off.    Gaz.     773;     Pitts    v. 
Wemple,   19  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,195,  6  McLean 
558;    Robertson    v.    Hill,    20    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
11,925.  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465,  4  Off.  Gaz.  132; 
Waterbury  Brass  Co.  v.  New  York,  etc.,  Brass 
Co.,   29    Fed.    Cas.   No.    17,256,   3    Fish.   Pat. 
Cas.  43;  Williams  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 

[XIII,  A,  6,  i] 


Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,716,  4  Ban.  &  A.  441,  17 
Blatchf.  21,  16  Off.  Gaz.  906. 

Making  one  of  the  parts  perform  additional 
functions  does  not  avoid  infringement.  Colby 
v.  Card,  63  Fed.  462  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  64  Fed.  594,  12  C.  C.  A.  319]  ; 
Pacific  Cable  R.  Co.  v.  Butte  City  St.  R.  Co., 
55  Fed.  760  [reversed  in  60  Fed.  410,  9 
C.  C.  A.  41];  Masseth  v.  Palm,  51  Fed.  824; 
Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Ft.  Wayne  Electric  Co., 
44  Fed.  284;  Holmes  Burglar  Alarm  Tel.  Co. 
v.  Domestic  Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  42  Fed.  220; 
Shaver  v.  Skinner  Mfg.  Co.,  30  Fed.  68;  Yale 
Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Norwich  Nat.  Bank,  6  Fed. 
377,  19  Blatchf.  123;  New  York  Rubber  Co. 
v.  Chaskel,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,215,  9  Off. 
Gaz.  923;  Sloat  v.  Spring,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,948a. 

Duplicating  one  or  more  parts  will  not 
avoid  infringement.  Diamond  State  Iron  Co. 
v.  Goldie,  84  Fed.  972,  28  C.  C.  A.  589  [af- 
firming 81  Fed.  173] ;  Westinghouse  v.  New 
York  Air-Brake  Co.,  59  Fed.  581  [modified 
in  63  Fed.  962,  11  C.  C.  A.  528];  Butz 
Thermo-Electric  Regulator  Co.  v.  Jacobs 
Electric  Co.,  36  Fed.  191;  Blake  v.  Eagle 
Works  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,494,  3 
Biss.  77,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  591;  Kittle  v. 
Frost,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,856,  9  Blatchf.  214, 

5  Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   213;    Pike  v.   Providence, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,163,  1  Ban. 

6  A.  560,  Holmes  445,  6  Off.  Gaz.  575. 
Interposing  parts  in  combination  will  not 

avoid  infringement  where  the  operation  of  the 
combination  is  the  same.  Union  R.  Co.  v. 
Sprague  Electric  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  88  Fed.  82,  31 
C.  C.  A.  391;  Steel-Clad  Bath  Co.  v.  Davison, 
77  Fed.  736;  Loercher  v.  Crandal,  11  Fed. 
872,  20  Blatchf.  106. 

43.  Voss  v.  Fisher,  113  U.  S.  213,  5  S.  Ct. 
511,   28  L.  ed.   975;   Barr  Co.  v.  New  York, 
etc.,  Automatic  Sprinkler   Co.,   35   Fed.   513; 
Reckendorfer    v.    Faber,    20    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
11,625,   1   Ban.  &  A.   229,   12   Blatchf.   68,   5 
Off.   Gaz.   697    [a/firmed  in  92  U.  S.  347,  23 
L.  ed.  719] ;   Robertson  v.  Hill,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,925,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465,  4  Off.  Gaz. 
132. 

44.  Change  of  location  of  parts  as  involv- 
ing invention  see  supra,  III,  E,  16. 

45.  Wagner  Typewriter  Co.  v.  Wyckoff,  151 
Fed.    585,   81    C.   C.   A.    129    [modifying    138 
Fed.    108]  ;    Pettibone  V.    Pennsylvania    Steel 
Co.,  133  Fed.  730  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in   141   Fed.  95] ;   Consolidated  Fastener  Co. 
v.    Hays,    100    Fed.    984,    41    C.    C.    A.    142; 
Schroeder  v.  Brammer,  98  Fed.  880;  Sawyer 
Spindle  Co.  v.  W.  G.  &  A.  R.  Morrison  Co., 
54  Fed.  693;   Henzel  v.   California  Electrical 
Works,  51  Fed.  754,  2  C.  C.  A.  495;  Norton 
v.  Jensen,  49  Fed.  859,  1  C.  C.  A.  452;  Cali- 
fornia  Electrical   Works  v.   Henzel,   48    Fed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     985 


rearrangement  producing  different  operations  but  the  same  result  is    not    an 
infringement.46 

k.  Repair.  The  purchaser  of  a  patented  machine  has  the  right  to  use  it  until 
worn  out,47  and  therefore  he  may  repair  it  and  substitute  new  parts  for  old  so 
long  as  the  identity  of  the  machine  is  not  destroyed.48  He  may  not,  however, 


375;  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v.  Eureka  Spindle 
Co.,  33  Fed.  836  [affirmed  in  145  U.  S.  637, 
12  8.  Ct.  980,  36  L.  ed.  849]  ;  Kirk  v.  Du  Bois, 
33  Fed.  252;  Belle  Patent  Button  Fastener 
Co.  v.  Lucas,  28  Fed.  371;  Hartford  Mach. 
Screw  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  26  Fed.  528;  Hoyt  v. 
Slocum,  26  Fed.  329;  Putnam  v.  Hollender, 
6  Fed.  882,  19  Blatchf.  48;  Adams  v.  Joliet 
Mfg.  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  56,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
1,  12  Off.  Gaz.  93;  Conover  v.  Dohrman,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,120,  6  Blatchf.  60,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  382;  Decker  v.  Grote,  7  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,726,  10  Blatchf.  331,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
143,  3  Off.  Gaz.  65;  Gale  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Prutz- 
man,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,191a,  5  Ban.  &  A. 
154,  17  Off.  Gaz.  743;  Hamilton  v.  Ives,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No,  5,982,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  244, 
3  Off.  Gaz.  30  [affirmed  in  92  U.  S.  426,  23 
L.  ed.  494] ;  King  v.  Maudelbaum,  14  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,799,  8  Blatchf.  468,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  577;  Knox  v.  Great  Western  Quicksilver 
Min.  Co.,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,907,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
25,  7  Reporter  325,  6  Sawy.  430,  14  Off.  Gaz. 
897;  Smith  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,058;  Winans  v.  Danforth,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,859. 

Mere  reversal  of  position  or  operation  does 
not  avoid  infringement.  Heap  v.  Greene,  91 
Fed.  792,  34  C.  C.  A.  86  [reversing  75  Fed. 
405];  Huntington  Dry-Pulverizer  Co.  v.  Whit- 
taker  Cement  Co.,  89  Fed.  323;  Socigte"  Ano- 
nyme  Usine  J.  Cleret  v.  Rehfuss,  75  Fed.  657 ; 
Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry  Electric  Co., 
58  Fed.  186,  7  C.  C.  A.  164,  59  Fed.  295, 
8  C.  C.  A.  129;  Brown  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mast, 
53  Fed.  578;  Masseth  V.  Palm,  51  Fed.  824; 
Blanchard's  Gun-Stock  Turning  Factory  v. 
Warner,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,521,  1  Blatchf. 
258,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  184;  Buerk  v.  Im- 
haeuser,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,106,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
337,  5  Off.  Gaz.  752  [affirmed  in  101  U.  S. 
647,  25  L.  ed.  945];  Potter  v.  Schenck,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,337,  1  Biss.  515,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  82;  Potter  v.  Whitney,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,341,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  77,  1 
Lowell  87;  Union  Metallic  Cartridge  Co.  v. 
U.  S.  Cartridge  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,369, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  593,  11  Off.  Gaz.  1113;  Wells 
v.  Jacques,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,398,  1  Ban. 
&  A.  60,  5  Off.  Gaz.  364. 

Infringement  of  a  process  patent  is  not 
avoided  by  reversing  one  of  the  mechanical 
steps  of  the  process,  where  the  purpose  and 
result  of  the  step  is  the  same.  Burdon  Wire, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Williams,  128  Fed.  927. 

46.  McCormick  v.  Talcott,  20  How.  (U.  S.) 
402,  15  L.  ed.  930;  Campbell  Printing-Press, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Duplex  Printing-Press  Co.,  101 
Fed.  282,  41  C.  C.  A.  351;  Overweight 
Counterbalance  Elevator  Co.  v.  Improved 
Order  Red  Men's  Hall  Assoc.,  94  Fed.  155,  36 
C.  C.  A.  125;  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v. 
Electric  Engineering,  etc.,  Co.,  83  Fed.  473, 


27  C.  C.  A.  562 ;  Brown  v.  Stilwell,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  57  Fed.  731,  741,  6  C.  C.  A.  528  [re- 
versing 49  Fed.  738] ;  Reece  Buttonhole  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Globe  Buttonhole  Mach.  Co.,  54  Fed. 
884  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  61  Fed. 
958,  10  C.  C.  A.  194] ;  Bruff  v.  Waterbury 
Buckle  Co.,  29  Fed.  214;  Otis  Bros.  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Crane  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  27  Fed.  550  [af- 
firmed in  136  U.  S.  646,  10  S.  Ct.  1072,  34 
L.  ed.  553] ;  National  Car- Brake  Shoe  Co.  v. 
Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  15  Fed.  462;  Pattee  v. 
Moline  Plow  Co.,  9  Fed.  821,  10  Biss.  377; 
Gorham  v.  Mixter,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,626, 
Brunn.  Col.  Cas.  327 ;  Habeman  v.  Whitman, 
11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,885a,  5  Ban.  &  A.  530. 
Similarity  of  result  is  not  sufficient.  Mc- 
Cormick v.  Talcott,  20  How.  (U.  S.)  402,  15 
L.  ed.  930;  Westinghouse  Air  Brake  Co.  v. 
New  York  Air  Brake  Co.,  119  Fed.  874,  56 
C.  C.  A.  404;  Ide  v.  Trorlicht,  etc.,  Carpet 
Co.,  115  Fed.  137,  53  C.  C.  A.  341;  Kinloch 
Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Electric  Co.,  113  Fed. 
659,  51  C.  C.  A.  369;  Adams  Electric  Co.  v. 
Lindell  R.  Co.,  77  Fed.  432,  23  C.  C.  A.  223; 
Robbins  v.  Aurora  Match  Co.,  43  Fed.  434; 
Taylor  v.  Garretson,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,792, 
9  Blatchf.  156,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  116. 

47.  Chaffee  v.  Boston  Belting  Co.,  22  How. 
(U.  S.)    217,  16  L.  ed.  240;  Wilson  v.  Simp- 
son,   9    How.    (U.    S.)     109,    13    L.    ed.    66; 
Shickle,    etc.,    Iron    Co.    v.    St.    Louis    Car- 
Coupler  Co.,  77  Fed.   739,  23   C.  C.   A.   433; 
Day  v.  Union  India-Rubber  Co.,  7  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    3,691,    3    Blatchf.    488    [affirmed   in    20 
How.  216,    15  L.  ed.   883];    May  v.   Chaffee, 
16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,332,  2  Dill.  385,  5  Fish. 
Pat.   Cas.    160;    Spaulding  v.   Page,   22   Fed. 
Cas.   No.    13,219,   4    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    641,    1 
Sawy.   702. 

48.  Chaffee  v.  Boston  Belting  Co.,  22  How. 
(U.  S.)   217,  16  L.  ed.  240;  Wilson  v.  Simp- 
son,   9    How.     (U.    S.)     109,    13    L.    ed.    66; 
O'Rourke  Engineering  Constr.  Co.  v.  McMul- 
len,   150.  Fed.  338;   Morrin  v.   Robert  White 
Engineering    Works,    138    Fed.    68    [modified 
and   affirmed  in    143   Fed.   519,   74   C.  C.   A. 
466] ;   Goodyear  Shoe  Mach.  Co.  v.  Jackson, 
112  Fed.  146,  50  C.  C.  A.  159,  55  L.  R.  A.  692; 
Alaska  Packers'  Assoc.  v.  Pacific  Steam  Whal- 
ing Co.,  93  Fed.  672 ;  Shickle,  etc.,  Iron  Co.  v. 
St.   Louis   Car-Coupler  Co.,  77   Fed.   739,  23 
C.  C.  A.  433 ;  Young  v.  Foerster,  37  Fed.  203 
[affirmed  in   159  U.  S.  272,   15   S.  Ct.  1044, 
40  L.   ed.    138] ;    Aiken  v.  Manchester  Print 
Works,    1    Fed.   Cas.  No.    113,   2    Cliff.   435; 
Farrington  v.  Detroit  Water  Com'rs,  8  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,687,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  216;  Steam 
Cutter    Co.    v.    Sheldon,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
13,331,  10  Blatchf.  1,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  477. 

Patented  process  cannot  be  used  in  repair- 
ing. Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  V. 
Preterre,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,596,  3  Ban.  & 
A.  471,  15  Blatchf.  274,  14  Off.  Gaz.  346. 

[XIII,  A,  6,  k] 


986     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


reconstruct  or  rebuild  a  worn-out  machine.49  No  general  rule  can  be  laid  down 
by  which  to  determine  the  line  of  demarkation  between  legitimate  repairs  which  a 
purchaser  of  a  patented  machine  may  rightfully  make  thereon,  and  a  reconstruc- 
tion or  reproduction  which  will  constitute  infringement.  Each  case  must  in  that 
regard  be  decided  on  its  own  facts,  having  reference  to  the  scope  arid  purpose  of 
the  invention  and  the  fair  and  reasonable  intention  of  the  parties.50 

1.  Superiority  or  Inferiority  as  a  Test  of  Infringement.  Although  superiority 
may  indicate  such  difference  as  to  avoid  infringement,51  the  fact  that  the  infringing 
article  is  superior  to  that  made  by  the  patentee  will  not  avoid  infringement  so 
long  as  the  essential  features  of  the  patented  article  are  used,52  nor  will  the  fact 


Parts  for  sale  to  others  cannot  be  manu- 
factured see  St.  Louis  Car-Coupling  Co.  v. 
Shickle,  etc.,  Iron  Co.,  70  Fed.  783  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  77  Fed.  739], 

Parts  of  ditferent  construction  may  be  sub- 
stituted to  improve  the  device.  Thomson- 
Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Kelsey  Electric  R. 
Specialty  Co.,  75  Fed.  1005,  22  C.  C.  A.  1 
[modifying  72  Fed.  1016]. 

49.  Morrin   v.   Robert    White    Engineering 
Works,  138  Fed.  68  [modified  and  a/firmed  in 
143  Fed.  519,  74  C.  C.  A.  466] ;  Pacific  Steam 
Whaling  Co.  v.  Alaska  Packers'  Assoc.,   100 
Fed.  462,  40  C.  C.  A.  494   [affirming  93  Fed. 
672] ;  Shickle,  etc.,  Iron  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Car- 
Coupler  Co.,  77   Fed.  739,  23  C.  C.  A.  433; 
Davis  Electric  Works  v.  Edison  Electric  Light 
Co.,  60  Fed.  276,  8  C.  C.  A.  615  [affirming  58 
Fed.  878]  ;  Bicknell  v.  Todd,  3  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
1,389,   5   McLean   236,    Fish.   Pat.   Rep.   452; 
Gottfried  v.  Phillip  Best  Brewing  Co.,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,633,  5  Ban.  &  A.  4,   17  Off.  Gaz. 
675;   Union  Metallic  Cartridge  Co.  v.  U.  S. 
Cartridge    Co.,    24   Fed.    Cas.    No.    14,369,    2 
Ban.  &  A.  593,  11  Off.  Gaz.  1113;  Wortendyke 
v.  White,   30   Fed.   Cas.  No.    18,050,   2   Ban. 
&    A.    25;    Dunlop    Pneumatic    Tyre    Co.    v. 
Neal,  [1899]   1  Ch.  807,  68  L.  J.  Ch.  378,  80 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  746,  47  Wkly.  Rep.  632. 

Changing  and  reconstructing  patented  ma- 
chines and  selling  them  under  a  different 
name  is  infringement.  National  Phonograph 
Co.  v.  Fletcher,  117  Fed.  149. 

50.  Goodvear  Shoe  Mach.   Co.  v.  Jackson, 
112  Fed.   146,  50  C.  C.  A.  159,  55  L.  R.  A. 
692. 

51.  Carter  v.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,472, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512;  Johnson 
v.  Root,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,411,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  351;   Singer  v.  Walmsley,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    12,900,    1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    558;    Smith 
v.    Woodruff,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No.    13,128a,    6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  476. 

52.  Hoyt  «?.  Home,  145  U.  S.  302,  12  S.  Ct. 
922,  36  L.  ed.  713;  Morley  Sewing  Mach.  Co. 
v.  Lancaster,  129  U.  S.  263,  9  S.  Ct.  299,  32 
L.  ed.  715;  Elizabeth  v.  American  Nicholson 
Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000; 
Robertson  v.  Blake,  94  U.  S.  728,  24  L.  ed. 
245;  O'Reilly  v.  Morss,  15  How.    (U.  S.)    62, 
14   L.   ed.    601;    Evans   v.   Eaton,    7    Wheat. 
(U.  S.)    356,  5  L.  ed.  472;   Diamond  Match 
Co.  v.  Ruby  Match  Co.,  127  Fed.  341;  Elec- 
tric  Smelting,   etc.,   Co.  v.   Pittsburg  Reduc- 
tion   Co.,    125    Fed.    926,    60    C.    C.   A.    636; 
Brislin    v.     Carnegie     Sleel     Co.,     118     Fed. 
579     [reversed    on     other    grounds     in     124 

[XIII,  A,  6,  k] 


Fed.  213,  59  C.  C.  A.  651];  Adams  Co. 
v.  Schreiber,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  Ill  Fed. 
182  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  117 
Fed.  830,  54  C.  C.  A.  128];  Crown  Cork, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Aluminum  Stopper  Co.,  108  Fed. 
845,  48  C.  C.  A.  72;  Bonnette  Arc  Lawn 
Sprinkler  Co.  v.  Koehler,  82  Fed.  428,  27 
C.  C.  A.  200;  Whitely  v.  Fadner,  73  Fed.  486; 
Goshen  Sweeper  Co.  v.  Bissell  Car  pet- Sweeper 
Co.,  72  Fed.  67,  19  C.  C.  A.  13;  Robbins  v. 
Dueber  Watch-Case  Mfg.  Co.,  II  Fed.  186; 
Traver  v.  Brown,  62  Fed.  933;  Simmons  v. 
Standard  Oil  Co.,  62  Fed.  928;  Woodward 
v.  Boston  Lasting  Mach.  Co.,  60  Fed.  283, 
8  C.  C.  A.  622;  Merrow  v.  Shoemaker,  59 
Fed.  120  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  61 
Fed.  945,  10  C.  C.  A.  181];  Gilbert  v.  Rein- 
hardt  Numbering  Mach.  Co.,  58  Fed.  975; 
Stonemetz  Printers'  Mach.  Co.  v.  Brown  Fold- 
ing-Mach.  Co.,  57  Fed.  601  [affirmed  in  58 
Fed.  571,  7  C.  C.  A.  374];  Pittsburg  Re- 
duction Co.  v.  Cowles  Electric  Smelting,  etc., 
Co.,  55  Fed.  301;  White  v.  Waltridge,  46 
Fed.  526;  National  Typographic  Co.  v.  New 
York  Typographic  Co.,  46  Fed.  114;  Shaver 
v.  Skinner  Mfg.  Co.,  30  Fed.  68;  Royer  v. 
Coupe,  29  Fed.  358;  Filley  v.  Littlefield,  25 
Fed.  282;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chrolithion 
Collar,  etc.,  Co.,  23  Fed.  397,  23  Blatchf. 
205;  Bostock  v.  Goodrich,  21  Fed.  316;  Roe- 
mer  v.  Simon,  20  Fed.  197;  Every  v.  Burt, 
15  Fed.  112  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
133  U.  S.  349,  10  S.  Ct.  394,  33  L.  ed.  647] ; 
Foye  17.  Nichols,  13  Fed.  125,  8  Sawy.  201; 
Frost  v.  Marcus,  13  Fed.  88;  American  Bell 
Tel.  Co.  v.  Spencer,  8  Fed.  509;  Pennington 
v.  King,  7  Fed.  462;  Adams  v.  Joliet  Mfg. 
Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  56,  3  Ban.  &  A.  1,  12 
Off.  Gaz.  93;  Alden  v.  Dewey,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  153,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  17,  1  Story  336; 
American  Whip  Co.  v.  Lombard,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  319,  3  Ban.  &  A.  598,  4  Cliff.  495,  14 
Off.  Gaz.  900;  Blake  v.  Eagle  Works  Mfg. 
Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,494,  3  Biss.  77,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  591;  Blake  v.  Robertson,  3 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,500,  11  Blatchf.  237,  6  Fisli. 
Pat.  Cas.  509;  Carstaedt  v.  U.  S.  Corset  Co., 
5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,468,  2  Ban.  &  A.  119,  13 
Blatchf.  119,  9  Off.  Gaz.  151;  Chicago  Fruit- 
House  Co.  t7.  Busch,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,669, 
2  Biss.  472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  395;  Coleman 
v.  Liesor,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,984;  Colt  v. 
Massachusetts  Arms  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3.030,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  108;  Conover  17. 
Rapp,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,124,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  57;  Converse  v.  Cannon,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,144,  2  Woods  7,  9  Off.  Gaz.  105;  Cook 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     987 


that  it  is  inferior.53     Infringement  is  not  avoided  by  intentionally  making  the 
device  imperfect  or  defective.54 

m.  Patented  Improvement.     A  device  is  none  the  less  an  infringement  because 
it  is  covered  by  an  improvement  patent  granted  to  the  inf ringer.55     Change  in 


v.  Howard,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,160,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  269 ;  Crehore  v.  Norton,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,381;  Decker  -v.  Griffith,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,724,  10  Blatchf.  343  note;  De  Florez  v. 
Raynolds,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,742,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
292,  14  Blatchf.  505;  Flint  v.  Roberts,  9  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,875,  4  Ban.  &  A.  165;  Forbes  v. 
Barstow  Stove  Co.,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,923,  2 
Cliff.  379;  Foss  v.  Herbert,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,957,  1  Biss.  121,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  31; 
Goodyear  v.  Mathews,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,576, 
1  Paine  300,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  50;  Goodyear 
v.  Mullee,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,579,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  420;  Gray  v.  James,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,718,  Pet.  C.  C.  394,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
120;  Hays  v.  Sulsor,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,271, 
1  Bond  279,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  532;  Howe  v. 
Morton,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,769,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  586;  Howes  v.  Nute,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,790,  4  Cliff.  173,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  263; 
Imlay  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  13  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,012,  4  Blatchf.  227,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
340;  Kendrick  v.  Emmons,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,695,  2  Ban.  &  A.  208,  9  Off.  Gaz.  201; 
McComb  v.  Brodie,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,708, 
5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  384,  1  Woods  153,  2  Off. 
Gaz.  117;  Odiorne  v.  Denney,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
•10,431,  3  Ban.  &  A.  287,  13  Off.  Gaz.  965,  1 
N.  J.  L.  J.  183 ;  Pitts  v.  Wemple,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,194,  1  Biss.  87,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  10; 
Reutgen  v.  Kanowrs,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,710,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  1,  1  Wash.  168; 
Sayles  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,415,  3  Biss.  52,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  584; 
Stainthorp  v.  Humiston,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,281,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  107;  Star  Salt 
Caster  Co.  v.  Grossman,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,321,  3  Ban.  &  A.  281,  4  Cliff.  568;  Tur- 
rell  v.  Spaeth,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,269,  3 
Ban.  &  A.  458,  14  Off.  Gaz.  377;  Union 
Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Pultz,  etc.,  Co.,  24 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,392,  3  Ban.  &  A.  403,  15 
Blatchf.  160,  15  Off.  Gaz.  423;  Westing- 
house  v.  Gardner,  etc.,  Air  Brake  Co.,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,450,  2  Ban.  &  A.  55,  9  Off.  Gaz. 
538;  Whipple  v.  Baldwin  Mfg.  Co.,  29  Fed. 
€as.  No.  17,514,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  29;  Whit- 
ney v.  Mowry,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,592,  2 
Bond  45,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  157;  Whittemore 
v.  Cutter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,601,  1  Gall. 
478,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  40;  Wilbur  v.  Beecher, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,634,  2  Blatchf.  132,  Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  401 ;  Winans  v.  New  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,864,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  1;  Woodcock  v.  Parker,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,971,  1  Gall.  438,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  37; 
Woodworth  v.  Rogers,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,018,  3  WToodb.  &  M.  135,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
625;  United  Tel.  Co.  v.  Harrison,  21  Ch.  D. 
720,  51  L.  J.  Ch.  705,  46  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
620,  30  Wkly.  Rep.  724;  American  Dunlop 
Tire  Co.  v.  Anderson  Tire  Co.,  5  Can.  Exch. 
194. 

Relative  superiority  of  devices  is  irrelevant. 
Stevens   v.   Pierpont,   42   Conn.   360;    Lourie 


Implement  Co.  v.  Lenhart,  130  Fed.  122,  64 
C.  C.  A.  456;  May  v.  Fond  du  Lac  County, 
27  Fed.  691  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  137 
U.  S.  395,  11  S.  Ct.  98,  34  L.  ed.  714];  Cox 
v.  Griggs,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,302,  1  Biss.  362, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  174;  Roberts  v.  Harnden, 
20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,903,  2  Cliff.  500;  Tilgh- 
man  v.  Werk,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,046,  1  Bond 
511,- 2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  229. 

53.  Cimiotti  Unhairing  Co.  v.  Bowsky,  95 
Fed.  474;   Hubbard  v.  King  Ax  Co.,  89  Fed. 
713;    Union  R.    Co.   v.   Sprague   Electric  R., 
etc.,  Co.,  88  Fed.  82,  31   C.  C.  A.  391;  Na- 
tional   Folding-Box,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Elsas,    86 
Fed.  917,  30  C.  C.  A.  487;  Heap  v.  Greene, 
75  Fed.  405  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  91 
Fed.  792,  34  C.  C.  A.  86] ;  Robinson  v.  Sutter, 
8  Fed.  828,  10  Biss.  100;   Forbes  v.  Barstow 
Stove  Co.,  0  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,923,  2  Cliff.  379 ; 
Union   Paper-Bag   Mach.    Co.    v.    Binney,    24 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,387,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  166. 

54.  Crown    Cork,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Standard 
Stopper    Co.,    136    Fed.    199;    A.    R.    Milner 
Seating    Co.    v.    Yesbera,    133    Fed.    916,    67 
C.  C.  A.  210;  White  v.  Peerless  Rubber  Mfg. 
Co.,  Ill  Fed.  190;  King  Ax  Co.  v.  Hubbard, 
97    Fed.    795,    38    C.    C.    A.    423;    Penfield   v. 
Chambers,    92    Fed.    630,    34    C.   C.    A.    579; 
Whiteley    v.    Fadner,    73     Fed.    486;    Tripp 
Giant  Leveller  Co.  v.  Bresnahan,  70  Fed.  982 
[affirmed  in  72  Fed.  920,  19  C.  C.  A.  2371; 
Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v.  W.  G.  &  A.  R.  Mor- 
rison Co./ 52  Fed.  590;   Chicago  Fruit-House 
Co.  v.  Busch,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,669,  2  Biss. 
472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  395. 

55.  Cantrell  v.  Wallick,  117  U.  S.  689,  6 
S.    Ct.    970,    29    L.    ed.    1017;    Tilghman    v. 
Proctor,    102    U.    S.    707,    26    L.    ed.    279; 
Blanchard  v.  Putnam,  8  Wall.    (U.  S.)    420, 
19  L.  ed.  433;   Ries  v.  Barth  Mfg.   Co.,   136 
Fed.  850,  69  C.  C.  A.  528;  Bradford  Belting 
Co.   v.  .Kisinger-Ison   Co.,    113    Fed.   811,   51 
C.  C.  A.  483;  Smith  v.  Uhrich,  94  Fed.  865; 
Bowers  v.   Von   Schmidt,   63   Fed.   572;    Put- 
nam v.  Keystone  Bottle  Stopper  Co.,  38  Fed. 
234;    Tate  v.  Thomas,  27   Fed.   306;    Wilson 
v.  Cubley,  26  Fed.   156;  Zeun  v.  Kaldenberg, 
16  Fed.  539;   Star  Salt  Caster  Co.  v.  Alden, 
10  Fed.  555;   White  v.  Heath,   10  Fed.  291; 
Carter   i\    Baker,   5    Fed.    Cas.    No.    2,472,    4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  513;  Cleveland 
v.  Towle,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,888,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  525;  Jones  v.  Merrill,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,481,  8   Off.  Gaz.   401 ;    Morse   Fountain-Pen 
Co.  V.  Esterbrook  Steel-Pen  Mfg.  Co.,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,862,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  515;  Storrs 
v.   Howe,   23    Fed.    Cas.   No.    13,495,    2    Ban. 
&   A.    420,    4    Cliff.    388,    10    Off.    Gaz.    421; 
Wilson  v.  Barnum,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,787, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  635,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  749, 
1   Wall  Jr.  347. 

Use  of  patented  machine  to  perform  a  proc- 
ess previously  patented  by  another  is  in- 
fringement. Expanded  Metal  Co.  v.  Brad- 
ford, 136  Fed.  870  [reversed  on  other  grounds 

[XIII,  A,  6,  m] 


988     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


the  details  of  construction  of  a  patented  article  may  be  patentable  as  improvements, 
but  is  no  protection  against  the  infringement  of  the  original  patent.56  The  original 
patentee  cannot  use  the  patented  improvement.57 

7.  DESIGNS.  An  article  infringes  a  design  patent  when  it  so  nearly  resembles 
the  patented  design  in  appearance  as  to  lead  ordinary  purchasers  to  mistake  one 
for  the  other.  The  test  is  the  sameness  of  appearance  to  the  ordinary  observer 
giving  ordinary  attention  to  the  matter.58  Difference  in  structure  or  appearance 
which  will  enable  experts  to  distinguish  them  will  not  prevent  infringement.59 
But  confusion  which  is  due  to  lack  of  attention  by  purchasers  or  other  causes 
than  similarity  of  the  patented  form  will  not  show  infringement.60  And  it  is 


in  146  Fed.  984,  77  C.  C.  A.  230] ;  Collette 
f.  Lasnier,  13  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  563;  Merrill  v. 
Cousins,  26  U.  C.  Q.  B.  49. 

Where  the  alleged  infringer  has  a  subse- 
quently granted  patent  upon  his  device,  the 
presumption  is  against  infringement.  New 
Jersey  Wire  Cloth  Co.  v.  Buffalo  Expanded 
Metal  Co.,  131  Fed.  265  [affirmed  in  135  Fed. 
1021,  68  C.  C.  A.  672] ;  Anderson  v.  Collins, 
122  Fed.  451,  58  C.  C.  A.  669;  Powell  v. 
Leicester  Mills  Co.,  103  Fed.  476  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  108  Fed.  386,  47  C.  C.  A. 
416] ;  Norton  v.  Jensen,  90  Fed.  415,  33 
C.  C.  A.  141;  Griffith  v.  Shaw,  89  Fed.  313; 
St.  Louis  Car-Coupler  Co.  v.  National  Mal- 
leable Castings  Co.,  87  Fed.  885,  31  C.  C.  A. 
265;  Kohler  v.  George  Worthington  Co.,  77 
Fed.  844;  Ransome  v.  Hyatt,  69  Fed.  148, 
16  C.  C.  A.  185;  National  Harrow  Co.  v. 
Hanby,  54  Fed.  493;  Brown  v.  Selby,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,030,  2  Biss.  457,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
363;  Buerk  v.  Imhaeuser,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,108,  2  Ban.  &  A.  465,  11  Off.  Gaz.  112. 
Contra,  Bowers  v.  Pacific  Coast  Dredging, 
etc.,  Co.,  99  Fed.  745;  Hardwick  v.  Masland, 
71  Fed.  887;  Hollidav  v.  Pickhardt,  12  Fed. 
147. 

56.  Tate  v.  Thomas,  27  Fed.  306;  Wilson 
V.  Cubley,  26  Fed.  156;  White  v.  Heath,  10 
Fed.  291;   Carter  t?.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,   1  Sawy.  512. 

57.  Cantrell  v.  Wallick,  117  U.  S.  689,  6 
S.  Ct.  970,  29  L.  ed.   1017;   Royer  v.  Coupe, 
29  Fed.  358;  Crehore  v.  Norton,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,381 ;  Flint  v.  Roberts,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,475,  4  Ban.  &  A.   165;   Gray  v.  James,   10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,718,  Pet.  C.  C.  394,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  120;  Star  Salt  Caster  Co.  v.  Cross- 
man,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,321,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
281,  4  Cliff.  568;   Whipple  v.  Baldwin  Mfg. 
Co.,   29   Fed.   Cas.   No.    17,514,   4   Fish.   Pat. 
Cas.  29. 

58.  Smith    v.    Whitman    Saddle    Co.,    148 
U.    S.    674,    13    S.    Ct.    768,    37    L.    ed.    606; 
Gorham  Mfg.  Co.  v.  White,  14  Wall.   (U.  S.) 
511,    20    L    ed.    731;    Williams    Calk    Co.    v. 
Neverslip  Mfg.   Co.,    136   Fed.   210    [affirmed 
in    145    Fed.   928,   76   C.   C.   A.   466]  ;    Bevin 
Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Starr  Bros.  Bell  Co.,   114 
Fed.  362 ;  Pelouze  Scale,  etc.,  Co.  v.  American 
Cutlery  Co.,  102   Fed.   916,  43  C.  C.  A.  52; 
Myers  "v.  Sternheim,  97  Fed.  625,  38  C.  C.  A. 
345;    Byram    v.    Friedberger,    87    Fed.    559; 
Whittall   v.   Lowell  Mfg.   Co.,   79   Fed.    787; 
Henderson  v.   Tompkins,  60   Fed.   758;   Mac- 
beth   v.    Gillinder,    54    Fed.    171;    Ripley    V. 
Elson   Glass   Co.,   49   Fed.    927;    Dreyfus   v. 

[XIII,  A,  6,  m] 


Schneider,  25  Fed.  481;  Dryfoos  v.  Fried- 
man, 18  Fed.  824,  21  Blatchf.  563;  Jennings 
v.  Kibbe,  10  Fed.  669,  20  Blatchf.  353;  Wood 
v.  Dolby,  7  Fed.  475,  19  Blatchf.  214;  Mc- 
Crea  v.  Holdsworth,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  418,  23  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  444,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  36. 

Use  of  different  names  or  trade-marks. — 
Where  two  designs  are  substantially  similar 
the  fact  that  different  names  or  trade-marks 
are  or  may  be  used  in  connection  with  them 
will  not  sufficiently  distinguish  them.  Perry 
v.  Starrett,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,012,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  485,  14  Off.  Gaz.  599. 

What  was  old  at  the  date  of  the  patent 
will  not  infringe.  Byram  v,  Friedberger,  87 
Fed.  559. 

Cases  holding  design  infringed  see  Mat- 
thews, etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  American  Lamp,  etc., 
Co.,  103  Fed.  634;  American  Electrical 
Novelty,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Acme  Electric  Lamp  Co., 
98  Fed.  895 ;  Whittall  v.  Lowell  Mfg.  Co.,  79 
Fed.  787;  Braddock  Glass  Co.  v.  Macbeth,  64 
Fed.  118,  12  C.  C.  A.  70;  Stewart  v.  Smith, 
58  Fed.  580,  7  C.  C.  A.  380  [affirming  55  Fed. 
481];  Macbeth  v.  Gillinder,  54  Fed.  171; 
Ripley  v.  Elson  Glass  Co.,  49  Fed.  927 ;  Perry 
v.  Starrett,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,012,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  485,  14  Off.  Gaz.  599. 

Cases  holding  design  not  infringed  see 
Buerkle  v.  Standard  Heater  Co.,  105  Fed. 
779;  Pelouze  Scale,  etc.,  Co.  v.  American 
Cutlery  Co.,  102  Fed.  916,  43  C.  C.  A.  52; 
Byram  v.  Friedberger,  100  Fed.  963,  41 
C.  C.  A.  121  [affirming  87  Fed.  559] ;  Magic 
Light  Co.  v.  Economy  Gas-Lamp  Co.,  97  Fed. 
87,  38  C.  C.  A.  56;  Mesinger  Bicycle  Saddle 
Co.  v.  Humber,  94  Fed.  672,  674;  Soehner  v. 
Favorite  Stove,  etc.,  Co.,  84  Fed.  182,  28 
C.  C.  A.  317;  Frank  v.  Hess,  84  Fed.  170; 
Michigan  Stove  Co.  v.  Fuller- Warren  Co.,  81 
Fed.  376;  Sutro  Bros.  Braid  Co.  v.  Schloss, 
44  Fed.  356;  Dukes  v.  Bauerle,  41  Fed.  784; 
Crocker  v.  Cutter  Tower  Co.,  29  Fed.  456  [af- 
firmed in  140  U.  S.  678,  11  S.  Ct.  1019,  35 
L.  ed.  600]  j  Jennings  v.  Kibbe,  24  Fed. 
697. 

59.  Gorham  Mfg.   Co.  t?.  White,   14  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  511,  20  L.  ed.  731  [reversing  10  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    5,627,    7    Blatchf.    513,    2    Whitm. 
Pat.    Cas.    392];     Hutter    v.    Broome,     114 
Fed.  655 ;  Redway  v.  Ohio  Stove  Co.,  38  Fed. 
582;    Tomkinson    v.    Willets    Mfg.    Co.,    23 
Fed.  895;  Miller  v.  Smith,  5  Fed.  359;  Perry 
v.  Starrett,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,012,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  4R5,  14  Off.  Gaz.  599. 

60.  Kruttschnitt    v.     Simmons,     122    Fed. 
1020,   58    C.   C.   A.    Ill    [affirming    118   Fed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     989 


of  course  obvious  that  an  invalid  design  patent  will  not  support  a  claim  of 
infringement.61 

8.  INFRINGEMENT  AFTER  EXPIRATION  OF  PATENT.  Articles  illegally  made  during 
the  life  of  a  patent  cannot  be  lawfully  sold  after  the  patent  has  expired.68  The 
illegality  attaches  to  the  things  themselves.  The  person  making  them  has  no 
right  to  make  them,  no  right  to  them  when  made.63  But  the  part  manufacture 
of  articles  not  constituting  an  infringement,  with  intent  to  complete  into  the 
patented  article  immediately  on  the  expiration  of  the  patent,  is  not  infringement, 
as  the  monopoly  only  exists  during  the  life  of  the  patent.64 

B.  Contributory  Infringement  —  1.  IN  GENERAL.  Contributory  infringe- 
ment is  the  intentional  aiding  of  one  person  by  another  in  the  unlawful  making 
or  selling  or  using  of  the  patented  invention,65  and  this  is  usually  done  by  making 
or  selling  a  part  of  the  patented  invention  with  the  intent  and  purpose  of  so  aid- 
ing.66 The  essence  of  contributory  infringement  lies  in  concerting  with  others  in 
an  unlawful  invasion  of  the  patentee's  rights.67  The  burden  of  proof  is  on 
complainant  to  show  an  intention  on  the  part  of  defendants  to  aid  others  in  such 
infringement.68 

2.  SELLING  PARTS  OF  PATENTED  INVENTION.  Selling  parts  adapted  and  intended 
for  use  in  making  the  patented  invention  in  violation  of  the  patent  is  contributory 
infringement.69  The  mere  fact  that  they  might  be  so  used,  however,  will  not 


851 J;    Monroe  v.   Anderson,    58   Fed.    398,    7 
C.  C.  A.  272. 

61.  Union   Welting  Co.   v.   McCarter,    108 
Fed.  398,  47  C.  C.  A.  428;  Feder  v.  Stewart, 
etc.,  Co.,  105  Fed.  628;  Kampfe  v.  Reichard, 
105    Fed.    622;    Rowe   v.   Blodgett,   etc.,    Co., 
103  Fed.   873    {affirmed  in   112   Fed.   161,  46 
C.   C.  A.   214] ;   Matthews,   etc.,   Mfg.  Co.   v. 
American    Lamp,    etc.,    Co.,    103    Fed.    634; 
Koenen  v.  Drake,   101   Fed.  466,  41  C.  C.  A. 
466;   Gary  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Neal,  98  Fed.  617,  39 
C.  C.  A.  189;  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co. 
v.    Triumph    Electric    Co.,    97    Fed.    99,    38 
C.  C.  A.  65;  Sagendorph  v.  Hughes,  95  Fed. 
478. 

62.  Underwood  Typewriter   Co.  v.   Elliott- 
Fisher  Co.,  156  Fed.  588;  American  Diamond 
Rock-Boring   Co.    v.    Rutland    Marble    Co.,    2 
Fed.  355,  18  Blatchf.  147 ;  American  Diamond 
Rock-Boring  Co.  v.   Sheldon,   1   Fed.   870,    18 
Blatchf.  50;  Crossley  v.  Beverly,  9  B.  &  C.  63, 
17  E.  C.  L.  38,  3  C.  &  P.  513,  14  E.  C.  L.  690, 
7  L.   J.   K.   B.  O.  S.    127,  M.  &  M.   283,   22 
E.  C.  L.  522,  1  Russ.  &  M.  166  note,  5  Eng. 
Ch.  166  note,  39  Eng.  Reprint  65  [affirmed  in 
4  L.  J.  Ch.  25]  ;  Richards  v.  Williamson,  30 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  746,  22  Wkly.  Rep.  765. 

63.  American  Diamond  Rock-Boring  Co.  v. 
Sheldon,  1   Fed.  870,   18  Blatchf.  50. 

64.  White  v.  Walbridge,  46  Fed.  526. 

65.  Howson  Contrib.  Infr.  Pat.  1;  Goodyear 
Shoe  Mach.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  112  Fed.  146,  50 
C.    C.    A.    159,    55    L.    R.    A.    692;    Heaton- 
Peninsular    Button- Fastener    Co.    v.    Eureka 
Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25  C.  C.  A.  267, 
35  L.  R.  A.  728;   Thomson-Houston  Electric 
Co.  v.   Kelsey  Electric   R.   Specialty   Co.,   75 
Fed.   1005,  22  C.  C.  A.  1;  Hatch  v.  Hall,  30 
Fed.   613;    American    Cotton-Tie    Supply   Co. 
v.   McCready,    1    Fed.   Cas.   No.   295,   4  Ban. 
&    A.    588,    17    Blatchf.    291,    17    Off.    Gaz. 
565. 

Intent  to  aid  is  necessary.    Snyder  v.  Bun- 
nell,  29  Fed.  47;  Saxe  v.  Hammond,  21   Fed. 


Cas.   No.    12,411,    1    Ban.  &   A.   629,   Holmes 
456,  7  Off.  Gaz.  781. 

66.  Goodyear   Shoe  Mach.   Co.  v.  Jackson, 
112  Fed.  146,  50  C.  C.  A.   159,  55  L.  R.  A. 
692. 

67.  Goodyear  Shoe  Mach.   Co.  v.  Jackson, 
112  Fed.   146,  50  C.  C.  A.   159,  55  L.  R.  A. 
692. 

68.  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Kel- 
sey Electric  R.  Specialty  Co.,  72  Fed.  1016; 
Snyder  v.  Bunnell,  29  Fed.  47;    Coolidge  v. 
McCone,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,186,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
78,   2   Sawy.   571,   5   Off.   Gaz.   458;    Saxe  v. 
Hammond,  21  Fed.   Cas.  No.   12,411,   1  Ban. 
<&  A.  629,  Holmes  456. 

69.  Leeds,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Victor  Talking  Mach. 
Co.,    154  Fed.   58,   83   C.   C.  A.    170;    Victor 
Talking  Mach.    Co.    v.   Leeds,   etc.,    Co.,    150 
Fed.  147;  A.  B.  Dick  Co.  v.  Henry,  149  Fed. 
424;  Cutler-Hammer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Union  Elec- 
tric Mfg.  Co.,  147  Fed.  266;  Canda  v.  Michi- 
gan  Malleable    Iron    Co.,    124    Fed.    486,    61 
C.  C.  A.  194;  American  Graphophone  Co.  v. 
Leeds,  87  Fed.  873;    Thomson-Houston  Elec- 
tric Co.  v.  Ohio  Brass  Co.,  80  Fed.  712,  26 
C.  C.  A.  107  [affirming  78  Fed.  139]  ;  Ameri- 
can Graphophone  Co.  v.  Amet,  74  Fed.  789; 
St.    Louis    Car-Coupler    Co.    v.    Shickle,    etc., 
Iron   Co.,   70  Fed.   783    {.affirmed  in  77  Fed. 
739,  23  C.  C.  A.  433] ;  Stearns  v.  Phillips,  43 
Fed.  792;   Travers  v.  Beyer,  26  Fed.  450,  23 
Blatchf.  423;  Schneider  v.  Pountney,  21  Fed. 
399;   Holly  v.  Vergennes  Mach.   Co.,  4  Fed. 
74,  18  Blatchf.  327 ;  Richardson  v.  Noyes,  20 
Fed.   Cas.  No.    11,792,  2  Ban.  &  A.   398,   10 
Off.   Gaz.   507;    Wallace   v.   Holmes,   29   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,100,  9  Blatchf.  65,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  37,   1   Off.  Gaz.    117.     Contra,  Byam  v. 
Farr,   4   Fed.   Cas.   No.    2,264,    1    Curt.   260. 
And  see   Larochella  v.   Gauthier,    14   Quebec 
Super.  Ct.  87. 

Selling  the  ingredients  of  a  composition 
with  the  expectation  and  intent  that  they 
be  used  in  making  it  is  infringement.  Rum- 

[XIII,  B,  2] 


990     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


make  the  seller  an  infringer  if  they  are  capable  of  other  use,70  and  the  seller  did 
not  intend  that  they  should  be  used  for  purposes  of  infringement.71  it  is  not 
contributory  infringement  to  make  and  sell  parts  to  licensees  under  the  patent  for 
legitimate  purposes  of  repair,72  or  to  make  and  ship  parts  abroad,73  and  there 
is  no  infringement  if  the  parts  are  never  put  into  actual  use  in  the  patented  com- 
bination.74 So  the  doctrine  of  contributory  infringement  has  no  application  where 
the  thing  alleged  to  be  contributed  is  one  of  general  use,  suitable  to  a  great 
variety  of  other  methods  of  use,75  and  especially  where  there  is  no  agreement  or 
definite  purpose  that  the  thing  sold  shall  be  employed  with  other  things  so  as  to 
infringe  a  patent  right.76 

3.  SELLING  ARTICLE   USED  WITH  PATENTED   INVENTION.     The  sale  of  an  article 


ford  Chemical  Works  v.  New  York  Baking 
Powder  Co.,  136  Fed.  873;  Imperial  Chemi- 
cal Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stein,  69  Fed.  616;  Celluloid 
Mfg.  Co.  f.  American  Zylonite  Co.,  35  Fed. 
417;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  American  Zylonite 
Co.,  30  Fed.  437,  35  Fed.  417;  Willis  v.  Mc- 
Cullen,  29  Fed.  641 ;  Alabastine  Co.  v.  Payne, 
27  Fed.  559;  Bowker  v.  Dows,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,734,  3  Ban.  &  A.  518,  15  Off.  Gaz.  510; 
Rumford  Chemical  Works  v.  Hecker,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,133,  2  Ban.  &  A.  351,  10  Off.  Gaz. 
289. 

One  who  sells  a  device,  the  natural  use  of 
which  will  make  the  purchaser  an  infringer, 
is  guilty  of  contributory  infringement.  Davis 
v.  Perry,  120  Fed.  941,  57  C.  C.  A.  231  [re- 
versing 115  Fed.  333];  Loew  Filter  Co.  v. 
German-American  Filter  Co.,  107  Fed.  949, 
47  C.  C.  A.  94  [affirming.  103  Fed.  303]  ; 
John  R.  Williams  Co.  v.  Miller,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  107  Fed.  290;  Westinghouse  Electric, 
etc.,  Co.  T.  Dayton  Fan,  etc.,  Co.,  106  Fed. 
724;  American  Graphophone  Co.  v.  Haw- 
thorne, 92  Fed.  516;  New  York  Filter  Mfg. 
Co.  i?.  Jackson,  91  Fed.  422;  Boyd  v.  Cherry, 
50  Fed.  279;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  American 
Zylonite  Co.,  30  Fed.  437 ;  Snyder  v.  BunnelT, 
29  Fed.  47;  Alabastine  Co.  v.  Payne,  27  Fed. 
559 ;  American  Diamond  Rock  Boring  Co.  v. 
Sullivan  Mach.  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  298,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  522,  14  Blatchf.  119;  Bowker  v. 
Dows,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,734,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
518,  15  Off.  Gaz.  510;  Knight  v.  Gavit,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,884. 

Merely  omitting  an  element  of  the  com- 
bination which  must  be  supplied  by  the  user 
will  not  avoid  infringement.  Heekin  f>. 
Baker,  127  Fed.  828  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  138  Fed.  63,  70  C.  C.  A.  559] ; 
Bishop,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Levine,  119  Fed.  363;  Red 
Jacket  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Davis,  82  Fed.  432,  27 
C.  C.  A.  204. 

Making  and  selling  parts  separately  to  be 
assembled  by  user  is  infringement.  Lee  v. 
Northwestern  Stove  Repair  Co.,  50  Fed.  202 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  58  Fed.  182,  7 
C.  C.  A.  160]  ;  Strobridge  v.  Lindsay,  6  Fed. 
510;  Barnes  v.  Straus,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,022, 
9  Blatchf.  553,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  531,  2  Off. 
Gaz.  62. 

.Manufacturing  an  improved  element  of  a 
patented  combination  and  substituting  it  in 
machines  sold  by  the  patentee  is  infringe- 
ment. National  Phonograph  Co.  v.  Fletcher, 
117  Fed.  149. 

Perishable  articles. —  The  rule  has  no  appli- 

[XIII,  B,  2] 


cation  to  a  perishable  article  which  it  is  the 
object  of  the  mechanism  to  deliver  and  which 
must  be  renewed  periodically.  Morgan  En- 
velope Co.  f.  Albany  Perforated  Wrapping 
Paper  Co.,  152  U.  S.  425,  14  S.  Ct.  627,  3d 
L.  ed.  500. 

70.  Standard  Computing  Scale  Co.  v .  Com- 
puting Scale  Co.,   126  Fed.  639,  61  C.  C.  A. 
541;  Lane  v.  Park,  49  Fed.  454;   Robbins  v. 
Aurora  Watch   Co.,   43   Fed.   521;    Winne  v. 
Bedell,   40   Fed.   463;    Snyder  v.   Bunnell,  29 
Fed.  47;  Keystone  Bridge  Co.  v.  Phoenix  Iron 
Co.,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,751,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
468,  1  Off.  Gaz.  471,  9  Phila.   (Pa.)   374  [af- 
firmed in  95  U.  S.  274,  24  L.  ed.  344]. 

71.  Where  wrongful  use  intended  there  is 
infringement.     Gary    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Standard 
Metal    Strap    Co.,    113    Fed.    429;    Heaton- 
Peninsular    Button-Fastener    Co.    t;.    Eureka 
Specialty  Co.,  77  Fed.  288,  25  C.  C.  A.  267, 
35  L.   R.   A.   728;    Boyd  v.   Cherry,   50   Fed, 
279;    Saxe   v.   Hammond,    21    Fed.    Cas.   No, 
12,411,  1  Ban.  &  A.  629,  Holmes  456,  7  Off. 
Gaz.  781;   Wallace  v.  Holmes,  29  Fed.   Cas. 
No.  17,100,  9  Blatchf.  65,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  37, 
1  Off.  Gaz.  117. 

72.  O'Rourke    Engineering    Constr.    Co.    v. 
McMullen,   150  Fed.  338;   Shickle,  etc.,  Iron 
Co.   v.    St.    Louis    Car-Coupler    Co.,    77    Fed. 
739,  23  C.  C.  A.  433;  Thomson-Houston  Elec- 
tric Co.  v.  Kelsey  Electric  R.  Specialty  Co., 
75   Fed.    1005,  22  C.   C.  A.   1    [modifying  72 
Fed.  1016] ;  Robbins  v.  Columbus  Watch  Co., 
50    Fed.    545    [affirmed   in    64    Fed.    384,    12 
C.  C.  A.  174].    See  also  on  this  point  Colum- 
bus  Watch   Co.   v.   Robbins,  52    Fed.   337,   3 
C.  C.  A.  103. 

73.  Bullock  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Westing- 
house   Electric,   etc.,    Co.,    129    Fed.    105,    63 
C.  C.  A.  607. 

74.  Campbell   v.   Kavanaugh,    11    Fed.    83, 
20  Blatchf.  256. 

75.  Rumford  Chemical  Works  v.  Hygienic 
Chemical  Co.,  148  Fed.  862   [affirmed  in  154 
Fed.  65,  83  C.  C.  A.  177] ;  Cortelyou  v.  John- 
son, 145  Fed.  933,  76  C.  C.  A.  455   [affirmed 
in  207  U.  S.  196,  28  S.  Ct.  105,  and  reversing 
138  Fed.   110];   Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v. 
Peninsular  Light,  etc.,  Co.,  95  Fed.  669   \ af- 
firmed  in   101    Fed.   831,   43    C.   C.  A.   479], 
And  see  Geis  v.  Kimber,  36  Fed.  105 ;  Millner 
v.    Schofield,    17    Fed.    Cas.    No.    9,609a,    4 
Hughes  258. 

76.  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Peninsu- 
lar Light,  etc.,  Co.,  95  Fed.  669  [affirmed  in 
101  Fed.  831,  43  C.  C.  A.  479]. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     991 


not  covered  by  the  claims  of  a  patent  but  capable  of  use  with  the  patented  inven- 
tion is  ordinarily  not  infringement.77  A  sale,  however,  with  intent  to  induce  a 
licensee  under  the  patent  to  violate  the  terms  of  his  license  agreement  is 
infringement.78 

4.  MISCELLANEOUS.  Furnishing  plans  of  an  infringing  device  and  sharing  in 
the  proiits  is  infringement,79  and  so  is  the  inducing  of  licensees  to  violate  the  con- 
ditions of  a  license.80 

C.  Suits — 1.  IN  GENERAL.  Suit  may  be  maintained  at  law  or  in  equity  to 
enforce  the  rights  arising  from  granted  patents,81  or  from  contracts  relating  to 
them.83 

2.  JURISDICTION  w  —  a.  In  General.  The  United  States  courts  have  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  suits  for  infringement  of  patents  whether  at  law  or  in  equity  with- 
out regard  to  the  citizenship  of  the  parties,84  and  this  jurisdiction  is  vested  in  the 


77.  Morgan   Envelope   Co.   v.   Albany  Per- 
forated Wrapping  Paper  Co.,  152  U.  S.  425, 
14  S.  Ct.  627,  38  L.  ed.  500;   Wagner  Type- 
writer Co.  v.  F.  S.  Webster  Co.,  144  Fed.  405 ; 
Gerard  v.  Diebold  Safe,  etc.,  Co.,  54  Fed.  889, 
4  C.  C.  A.  644  [affirming  48  Fed.  380]  j  Bliss 
V.  Merrill,  33  Fed.  39. 

Sale  of  article  made  by  patented  machine 
is  no  infringement.  Boyd  v.  Brown,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,747,  3  McLean  295,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  203. 

78.  Bement  v.  National   Harrow  Co.,    186 
U.  S.  70,  22  S.  Ct.  747,  46  L.  ed.  1058 ;  Rupp, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Elliott,  131  Fed.  730,  65  C.  C.  A. 
544;  Brodrick  Copygraph  Co.  v.  Mayhew,  131 
Fed.  92  [affirmed  in  137  Fed.  596,  70  C.  C.  A. 
557];  Tubular  Rivet  Co.  v.  O'Brien,  93  Fed. 
200;   Heaton-Peninsular  Button- Fastener  Co. 
v.    Eureka    Specialty    Co.,    77    Fed.    288,    25 
C.  C.  A.  267,  35  L.  R.  A.  728. 

79.  Trent  v.  Risdon  Iron,  etc.,  Works,  102 
Fed.  635,  42  C.  C.  A.  529  [modifying  92  Fed. 
375]  ;    Toppan    v.    Tiffany    Refrigerator    Car 
Co.,  39  Fed.  420. 

80.  Cortelyou    v.    Johnson,    138    Fed.    110 
[reversed  on*  other  grounds  in  145  Fed.  933, 
76  C.  C.  A.  455,  and  that  decision  affirmed  on 
other  grounds  in   207   U.   S.    196,   28   S.   Ct. 
105]. 

81.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.    (1878)    §§629,   4919 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  3394]. 

Suits  in  equity  may  be  brought  for  the 
infringement  of  a  patent  (U.  S.  Rev.  St. 
(1878)  §  4921,  amended  by  Act  March  3, 
1897,  29  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  692  [U.  S.  Comp. 
St.  (1901)  p.  3395];  Root  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  U.  S.  189,  26  L.  ed.  975; 
Morss  v.  Knapp,  35  Fed.  218;  Bragg  v.  Stock- 
ton, 27  Fed.  509;  Colgate  v.  Compagnie 
Francaise,  etc.,  23  Fed.  82,  23  Blatchf.  86: 
Brickill  v.  New  York,  7  Fed.  479,  18  Blatchf. 
273;  Livingston  v.  Jones,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,414,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  207,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  1  Wall.  155, 
17  L.  ed.  662]),  and  the  ordinary  rules  of 
equity  jurisprudence  are  applicable  (Keyes  v. 
Pueblo '  Smelting,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Fed.  560). 

82.  See,  generally,  supra,  XI. 

83.  See,    generally,    COURTS,    11    Cyc.    860, 
988. 

Jurisdiction  of  actions  for  infringement 
against  foreign  corporations  see  COURTS,  11 
Cyc.  854. 


84.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  711;  Cochrane 
V.  Deener,  94  U.  S.  780,  24  L.  ed.  139;  Ayling 
17.  Hull,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  686,  2  Cliff.  494. 

State  courts  have  no  jurisdiction  of  ques- 
tions involving  infringement  of  patents. 
Parkhurst  v.  Kinsman,  6  N.  J.  Eq.  600; 
Allison  Bros.  Co.  v.  Hart,  56  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
282,  9  N.  Y.  Suppl.  692;  Wilcox,  etc.,  Sew- 
ing Mach.  Co.  v.  Kruse,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  14 
Daly  (N.  Y.)  16,  3  N.  Y.  St.  590. 

Where  there  is  involved  a  controverted 
question  as  to  the  validity  or  infringement 
of  a  patent,  the  federal  courts  have  juris- 
diction even  of  suits  on  contracts.  Marsh  v. 
Nichols,  140  U.  S.  344,  11  S.  Ct.  798,  35 
L.  ed.  413;  St.  Paul  Plow- Works  v.  Starling, 
127  U.  S.  376,  8  S.  Ct.  327,  32  L.  ed.  251; 
Pacific  Contracting  Co.  v.  Union  Paving, 
etc.,  Co.,  80  Fed.  737;  Dunham  v.  Bent,  72 
Fed.  60;  Everett  v.  Haulenbeek,  68  Fed. 
911;  Seibert  Cylinder  Oil-Cup  Co.  v.  Man- 
ning, 32  Fed.  625. 

Where  the  question  of  infringement  is 
raised,  the  federal  courts  have  jurisdiction, 
although  the  party  also  has  a  remedy  by 
action  for  breach  of  contract.  Rupp,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Elliott,  131  Fed.  730,  65  C.  C.  A. 
544. 

Where  the  subsisting  contract  is  shown 
governing  the  rights  of  the  parties  and  de- 
fendant admits  the  validity  and  his  use  of 
plaintiff's  letters  patent,  the  suit  cannot  be 
maintained  between  citizens  of  the  same  state 
in  a  federal  court  as  arising  under  the  patent 
laws.  Rich  V.  Atwater,  16  Conn.  409;  White 
v.  Rankin,  144  U.  S.  628,  12  S.  Ct.  768,  36 
L.  ed.  569;  Marsh  v.  Nichols,  140  U.  S.  344, 
11  S.  Ct.  798,  35  L.  ed.  413;  Walter  A.  Wood 
Mowing,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.  v.  Skinner,  139  U.  S. 
293,  US.  Ct.  528,  35  L.  ed.  193;  Albright  v. 
Teas,  106  U.  S.  613,  1  S.  Ct.  550,  27  L.  ed. 
295;  Kartell  v.  Tilghman,  99  U.  S.  547,  25 
L.  ed.  357;  Brown  v.  Shannon,  20  How. 
(U.  S.)  55,  15  L.  ed.  826;  Wilson  v.  San- 
ford,  10  How.  (U.  S.)  99,  13  L.  ed.  344; 
Bowers  v.  Concanon,  105  Fed.  525;  Alaska 
Packers'  Assoc.  v.  Pacific  Steam  Whaling 
Co.,  93  Fed.  672;  Aiken  v.  Manchester  Print 
Works,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  113,  2  Cliff.  435; 
Parker  v.  Sears,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,748,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93.  And  see  COURTS,  11  Cyc. 
998. 

Although  the  use  of  the  invention  and  the 

[XIII,  C,  2,  a] 


992     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


various  circuit  courts,  in  certain  district  courts,  and  in  the  supreme  court  of  the 
District  of  Columbia.85  The  federal  statutes  confer  jurisdiction  upon  the  federal 
courts  of  equity  equally  with  courts  of  law;86  but  their  jurisdiction  arises  only 
where  there  are  grounds  for  equitable  interference  and  not  where  the  remedy  at 
law  would  be  full  and  complete.87  In  this  respect  the  matter  of  jurisdiction  at 
law  is  determined  by  the  same  general  principles  that  apply  in  other  suits.88  If 
it' is  not  clear  that  the  remedy  at  law  would  be  adequate,  equity  lias  jurisdiction.89 
b.  Suit  FOP  an  Aeeounting.  An  action  for  an  account  of  profits  and  damages 
alone  cannot  be  maintained  in  equity  where  there  is  no  equitable  ground  of  relief.90 


validity  of  the  patent  are  admitted  and  a 
license  is  alleged,  the  federal  courts  may  have 
jurisdiction.  White  v.  Rankin,  144  U.  S. 
628,  12  S.  Ct.  768,  36  L.  ed.  569;  Young 
Reversible  Lock-Nut  Co.  v.  Young  Lock-Nut 
Co.,  72  Fed.  62;  Elgin  Wind  Power,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Nichols,  65  Fed.  215,  12  C.  C.  A.  578. 

Where  infringement  depends  on  breach  of 
contract  of  assignment  the  breach  must  be 
established  before  the  federal  courts.  Routh 
v.  Boyd,  51  Fed.  821. 

85.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)   §§  571,  629. 
Supreme  court  of  the  District  of  Columbia 

has  circuit  court  jurisdiction.  Cochrane  v. 
Deener,  94  U.  S.  780,  24  L.  ed.  139. 

86.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4921;  White 
v.  Rankin,  144  U.  S.  628,   12  S.  Ct.  768,  36 
L.  ed.  569;  McCoy  v.  Nelson,  121  U.  S.  484, 
7  S.  Ct.  1000,  30  L.  ed.  1017;  Root  v.  Lake 
Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  105  U.  S.  189,  26  L.  ed. 
975;  Jonathan  Mills  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Whitehurst, 
56  Fed.  589;  Kirk  v.  Du  Bois,  28  Fed.  460; 
Avery  v.  Wilson,   20   Fed.   856;    Doughty  v. 
West,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,029,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
553;  Goodyear  v.  Hullihen,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,573,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  251,  2  Hughes  492; 
Livingston  v.  Jones,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,414, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  207,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330   {.re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  1  Wall.   155,   17 
L.   ed.   662] ;    McMillin   v.   Barclay,    16   Fed. 
Cas.    No.    8,902,    5    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    189,    4 
Brewst.   (Pa.)   275,  3  Pittsb.   (Pa.)   377. 

English  practice. —  Court  may  award  dam- 
ages as  well  as  injunction  (Newell  v.  Wil- 
son, 2  De  G.  M.  &  G.  282,  51  Eng.  Ch.  220,  42 
Eng.  Reprint  880;  Tuck  v.  Silver,  Johns. 
218,  70  Eng.  Reprint  403),  and  may  order 
infringing  article  destroyed  (Vavasseur  v. 
Krupp,  9  Ch.  D.  351,  39  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
437,  27  Wkly.  Rep.  176). 

87.  Root  t\  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   105 
U.  S.  189,  26  L.  ed.  975;  Edison  Phonograph 
Co.   v.   Hawthorne,   etc.,   Mfg.   Co.,    108   Fed. 
630;  Overweight  Counterbalance  Elevator  Co. 
v.  Standard  Elevator,  etc.,  Co.,  96  Fed.  231; 
Ross  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  58  Fed.  404  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  63   Fed.  466,   11   C.  C.  A. 
288]  ;   Drainage  Construction  Co.  v.  Chelsea, 
41    Fed.   47;    Ulman  v.   Chickering,   33   Fed. 
582;  Smith  V.  Sands,  24  Fed.  470;  Hayward 
v.  Andrews,  12  Fed.  786;  Adams  v.  Meyrose, 
7   Fed.   208,   2   McCrary   360;    Livingston  v. 
Jones,   15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,414,  2   Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  207,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330  [reversed  on  other 
grounds    in    1    Wall.    155,    17    L.    ed.    662]; 
Sanders  v.  Logan,  21   Fed.  Cas.  No.   12,295, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   167,  2  Pittsb.    (Pa.)    241; 
Sayles  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas. 

[XIII,  C,  2,  a] 


No.  12,424,  4  Ban.  &  A.  239,  3  Hughes  172, 
16  Off.  Gaz.  43;  Vaughan  v.  Central  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,897,  3  Ban.  &  A.  27, 
4  Sawy.  280;  Vaughan  v.  East  Tennessee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,898,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  537,  1  Flipp.  621,  11  Off.  Gaz.  789. 

Where  suit  is  primarily  on  contract,  equity 
has  no  jurisdiction,  although  an  account  is 
asked.  Perry  v.  Noyes,  96  Fed.  233. 

Where  bill  alleges  grounds  for  equity  juris- 
diction, admissions  by  defendant  cannot  oust 
jurisdiction.  Lilienthal  v.  Washburn,  8  Fed. 
707,  4  Woods  65. 

Jurisdiction  is  not  ousted  by  cessation  of 
infringement  by  defendant.  Cayuta  Wheel, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Kennedy  Valve  Mfg.  Co.,  127  Fed. 
355. 

Right  to  injunction  gives  jurisdiction  to  a 
court  of  equity.  Henzel  v.  California  Electri- 
cal Works,  51  Fed.  754,  2  C.  C.  A.  495  [af- 
firming 48  Fed.  375]. 

88.  Root  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   105 
U.  S.   189,  26  L.  ed.  975;   Woodmanse,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Williams,  68  Fed.  489,  15  C.  C.  A. 
520;  Brooks  v.  Miller,  28  Fed.  615. 

89.  Heaton-Peninsular  Button-Fastener  Co. 
v.  Eureka  Specialty  Co.,  65  Fed.  619;   Bick- 
nell  v,  Todd,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,389,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  452,  5  McLean  236;   McMillan  v.  Bar- 
clay,   16    Fed.    Cas.   No.   8,902,   5   Fish.   Pat. 
Cas.    189,    4    Brewst.     (Pa.)     275,    3    Pittsb. 
(Pa.)   377;  Vaughan  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,898,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
537,  1  Flipp.  621,  11  Off.  Gaz.  789. 

90.  Root  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   105 
U.  S.    189,  26  L.  ed.   975;   Russell  v.  Kern, 
69  Fed.  94,  16  C.  C.  A.  154  [affirming  64  Fed. 
581];    Germain  v.   Wilgus,   67    Fed.   597,    14 
C.  C.  A.  561 ;  American  Cable  R.  Co.  v.  Citi- 
zens' R.  Co.,  44  Fed.  484;  Consolidated  Mid- 
dlings  Purifier    Co.    v.    Wolf,    28    Fed.    814; 
Burdell  v.  Comstock,  15  Fed.  395;  Draper  r. 
Hudson,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,069,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  327,  Holmes  208,  3  Off.  Gaz.  354;  Jen- 
kins v.  Greenwald,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,270,  1 
Bond  126,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  37 ;  Livingston  v. 
Jones,   15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,414,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  207,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330  [reversed  on  other 
grounds    in    1    Wall.    155,    17    L.    ed.    662]; 
Sayles  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,424,  4  Ban.  &  A.  239,  3  Hughes  172, 
16   Off.   Gaz.   43.     Contra,   Atwood   v.   Port- 
land Co.,   10  Fed.   283;    Smith  v.  Baker,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,010,  1  Ban.  &  A.  117,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  496,  10  Phila.  (Pa.)  221.    See  also  infra, 
XIII,.  0,  2,  c. 

An  account  is  an  incident  to  an  injunction 
and  cannot  be  had  otherwise.  Smith  v.  Lon- 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     993 


Nevertheless,  an  account  may  be  had  where  there  is  ground  for  equitable 
interference.91 

e.  Expiration  of  Patent.  Where  suit  is  brought  upon  a  patent  which  has 
expired,  equity  ordinarily  has  no  jurisdiction,  the  proper  remedy  being  at  law  ;92 
but  where  expired  and  unexpired  patents  are  joined,  equity  may  take  jurisdic- 
tion ;93  and  where  jurisdiction  is  once  acquired  it  will  not  ordinarily  be  ousted  by 
the  expiration  of  the  patent.94  A  preliminary  injunction  against  infringement 
will  not  be  granted  where,  before  the  determination  of  the  motion  therefor,  the 
patent  sued  on  has  expired.95 

3.  PLACE  TO  SUE.  Suit  for  infringement  must  be  brought  in  the  district  of 
which  defendant  is  an  inhabitant,96  or  in  the  district  in  which  defendant,  whether 


don,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Eq.  Rep.  428,  1  Kay  408, 

23  L.  J.  Ch.  562,  2  Wkly.  Rep.  310,  69  Eng. 
Reprint    173;    Price's    Patent    Candle    Co.   17. 
Bauwen's    Patent    Candle    Co.,    4    Kay   &    J. 
727,   70  Eng.  Reprint  302. 

91.  Eclipse  Bicycle  Co.  v.  Farrow,  16  App. 
Gas.   (D.  C.)  468;  McMillin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
Transp.   Co.,    18    Fed.    260,    5   McCrary   561; 
Perry  v.  Corning,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,003,  6 
Blatchf.  134. 

Where  jurisdiction  acquired  accounting  may 
be  continued,  although  impossible  to  grant 
the  equitable  relief.  Busch  v.  Jones,  16  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  23. 

92.  Root  v.  Lake  Shore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   105 
U.  S.   189,  26  L.  ed.  975;   Adams  v.  Bridge- 
water    Iron   Co.,    26   Fed.    324;    Consolidated 
Safety- Valve  Co.  v.  Ashton  Valve  Co.,  26  Fed. 
319;   Lord  v.  Whitehead,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  24 
Fed.  801;   Hewitt  v.  Pennsylvania  Steel  Co., 

24  Fed.  367;  Campbell  v.  Ward,  12  Fed.  150. 
Contra,  Gordon  v.  Anthony,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,605,  4  Ban.  &  A.  248,   16  Blatchf.  234,   16 
Off.  Gaz.  1135;  Howes  v.  Nute,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,790,  4  Cliff.  173,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  263; 
Sayles  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    12,417,   3   Ban.   &  A.   219,   5   Dill.   561; 
Sickles  v.  Gloucester  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,841,  4  Blatchf.  229,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
222;   Stevens  v.  Kansas  Pac.  R.  Co.,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,401,  5  Dill.  486;  Vaughan  v.  East 
Tennessee,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    28    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
16,898,  2  Ban.  &  A.  537,  1  Flipp.  621,  11  Off. 
Gaz.  789. 

93.  Huntingdon  Dry  Pulverizer  Co.  v.  Vir- 
ginia-Carolina Chemical  Co.,  130  Fed.  558. 

94.  Expiration  of  patent  pending  suit  does 
not   oust    jurisdiction,   and   while   preventing 
injunction  will  not  prevent  account.     Busch 
v.  Jones,  16  App.  Cas.   (D.  C.)   23;  Beedle  v. 
Bennett,  122  U.  S.  71,  7  S.  Ct.  1090,  30  L.  ed. 
1074:    Clark   v.   Wooster,    119    U.    S.   322,    7 
S.   Ct.  217,  30  L.  ed.  392;    Huntington  Dry 
Pulverizer  Co.  v.  Virginia-Carolina  Chemical 
Co.,  130  Fed.  558;  U.  S.  Mitis  Co.  v.  Detroit 
Steel,   etc.,   Co.,    122   Fed.   863,   59   C.   C.   A. 
589;  Chinnock  v.  Paterson,  etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  112 
Fed.  531,  50  C.  C.  A.  384  [reversing  110  Fed. 
199]  ;     Bradner    Adjustable    Hanger    Co.    v. 
Water-bury  Button  Co.,   106   Fed.   735;   Ross 
v.  Ft.  Wayne,  63  Fed.  466,  11  C.  C.  A.  288; 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wilson  Sewing  Mach.  Co., 
38  Fed.  586;   Kittle  v.  Rogers,  33  Fed.   49; 
Kittle  v.   Schneider,   30  Fed.   690;    Kittle  v. 
De  Graaf,  30  Fed.  689;  Brooks  v.  Miller,  28 

[63] 


Fed.    615;    Adams   v.   Bridgewater   Iron   Co., 

26  Fed.  324;  Dick  v.  Struthers,  25  Fed.  103; 
New  York  Grape  Sugar  Co.  v.  Peoria  Grape 
Sugar  Co.,  21  Fed.  878;   Adams  v.  Howard, 
19  Fed.  317;   Gottfried  v.  Moerlein,   14  Fed. 
170;  Jones  v.  Barker,  11  Fed.  597;  Bloomer 
v.  Gilpin,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,558,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  50;   Imlay  v.  Norwich,  etc.,  R.  Co.,   13 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,012,  4  Blatchf.  227,  1  Fish. 
Pat.    Cas.    340;    Jordan   v.   Dobson,    13   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,519,  2  Abb.  398,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
232,   7   Phila.    (Pa.)    533;   Davenport  17.  Ry- 
lands,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  302,  12  Jur.  N.  S.  71,  35 
L.   J.   Ch.   204,   14  L.  T.  Rep.  N.   S.   53,   14 
Wkly.  Rep.  243;  Fox  v.  Dellestable,  15  Wkly. 
Rep.'  194. 

Where  the  equitable  relief  prayed  may  be  T 
obtained  after  expiration  of  the  patent  the 
suit  may  be  sustained.     Toledo  Mower,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Johnston  Harvester  Co.,  24  Fed.  739, 
23  Blatchf.  332. 

Where  patent  was  about  to  expire  when 
suit  filed  and  no  special  ground  for  equitable 
interference  was  shown,  the  suit  was  dis- 
missed. Miller  v.  Schwarner,  130  Fed.  561; 
Heap  v.  Borchers,  108  Fed.  237 ;  McDonald  v. 
Miller,  84  Fed.  344;  American  Cable  R.  Co. 
v.  Chicago  City  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  522;  Racine 
Seeder  Co.  17.  Joliet  Wire-Check  Rower  Co., 

27  Fed.  367;  Davis  v.  Smith,  19  Fed.  823. 
Where  impossible  to  obtain  final  decree  be- 
fore expiration  of  the  patent  the  suit  was 
dismissed.     Bragg  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Hartford,  56 
Fed.  292;  American  Cable  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago 
City  R.  Co.,  41  Fed.  522. 

95.  Huntington  Dry  Pulverizer  Co.  v.  Vir- 
ginia-Carolina Chemical  Co.,  121  Fed.  136. 

96.  Act  March   3,    1897,   c.   395,   29   U.   S. 
St.    at    L.    695    [U.    S.    Comp.    St.     (1901) 
p.  588]. 

Sales  anywhere  enjoined. —  Resident  of  dis- 
trict may  be  enjoined  from  selling  anywhere. 
Hatch  v.  Hall,  22  Fed.  438;  Boyd  v.  Mc- 
Alpin,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,748,  3  McLean  427, 

2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  277. 

Where  residence  and  business  are  in  dif- 
ferent districts  there  is  no  jurisdiction. 
Goodyear  v.  Chaffee,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,564, 

3  Blatchf.  268. 

In  Canada  suit  must  be  brought  in  court 
nearest  defendant's  residence.  Short  v. 
Federation  Brand  Salmon  Canning  Co.,  6 
Brit.  Col.  385,  436;  Aitcheson  v.  Maun,  9 
Ont.  Pr.  253,  473;  Goldsmith  v.  Walton,  9 
Ont.  Pr.  10. 

[XIII,  C,  3] 


994     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


a  person,  partnership,  or  corporation,  shall  have  committed  acts  of  infringement, 
and  has  a  regular  and  established  place  of  business.97  In  the  last  case  subpoena  or 
process  may  be  served  upon  the  agent  conducting  the  business.98 

4.  GROUNDS."     To  constitute  a  basis  for  an  infringement  suit,  there  must  have 
been  an  unauthorized  use 1  by  defendant  of  an  invention  covered  by  a  valid  patent 
owned  by  plaintiff.2 

5.  CONDITIONS  PRECEDENT.     Under  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4900  [U.  S.  Comp. 
St.  (1901)  p.  3388],  a  patentee  or  his  assignee  cannot  in  a  suit  against  infringers 
recover  damages,  without  alleging  and  proving  either  that  patented  articles  made 
and  sold  by  him,  or  the  packages  containing  them,  are  marked  "  patented,"  or 
else  that  it  gave  notice  to  defendants  of  his  patents  and  their  infringement ; 3  and 
in  the  event  that  direct  notice  to  defendants  is  alleged  and  proved  neither  dam- 
ages nor  profits  are  recoverable,  except  for  infringement  after  such  notice  was 
given.4     The  owner  of  a  patent  who  has  obtained  an  interlocutory  decree  adjudg- 
ing its  validity  and  infringement  is  not  required  to  wait  until  it  has  become  final 
before  bringing  suit  against  defendant  for  infringement  by  the  same  device  in 
another  district ;  nor  is  he  precluded,  by  the  fact  that  evidence  has  been  taken  in 
the  second  suit,  from  pleading  therein  the  final  decree  when  obtained  in  the  first 
suit  as  an  adjudication.5 

6.  DEFENSES  6  —  a.  In  General.     Defendant  may  show  that  he  does  not  use  the 
patented  invention.7     So  also  he  may  show  that  plaintiff  is  not  the  owner  of  the 


97.  Westinghouse     Electric,     etc.,     Co.     v. 
Stanley    Electric    Mfg.    Co.,    121    Fed.    101; 
Chicago  Pneumatic  Tool  Co.  v.  Philadelphia 
Pneumatic  Tool  Co.,  118  Fed.  852;  Westing- 
house  Electric,  etc.,   Co.  v.   Stanley  Electric 
Mfg.  Co.,  116  Fed.  641. 

Infringement  committed  in  the  district  is 
necessary.  International  Wireless  Tel.  Co.  v. 
Fessenden,  131  Fed.  491;  Streat  v.  American 
Rubber  Co.,  115  Fed.  634;  Wilson  Packing 
Co.  V.  Clapp,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,850,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  243,  8  Biss.  154,  13  Off.  Gaz.  368. 

Place  of  business  in  the  district  at  the  time 
of  suit  is  necessary.  Feder  v.  Fiedler,  116 
Fed.  378. 

Defects  in  allegations  and  service  are 
waived  by  appearance.  U.  S.  Consol.  Seeded 
Raisin  Co.  v.  Phoenix  Raisin  Seeding,  etc., 
Co.,  124  Fed.  234. 

98.  Act  March  3,  1897,  29  U.  S.  St.  at  L. 
695   [U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901)    p.  5881.     And 
see   Eagle   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Miller,   41    Fed.   351 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  151  U.  S.  186, 
14  S.  Ct.  310,  38  L.  ed.  121]. 

Service  upon  one  merely  designated  agent 
under  state  law  is  insufficient.  U.  S.  Gramo- 
phone Co.  v.  Columbia  Phonograph  Co.,  106 
Fed.  220. 

Agent  and  established  place  of  business 
defined  see  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v. 
Bullock  Electric  Co.,  101  Fed.  587. 

99.  Grounds  for  preliminary  injunction  see 
infra,  XIII,  C,  11,  b. 

Recovery  back  of  payment  see  PAYMENT. 

1.  Hapgood  v.  Hewitt,  119  U.  S.  226,  7 
S.  Ct.  193,  30  L.  ed.  369;  Eunson  v.  Dodge, 
18  Wall.  (U.  S.)  414,  21  L.  ed.  766;  Ham- 
macher  v.  Wilson,  26  Fed.  239  [affirmed  in 
145  U.  S.  662,  12  S.  Ct.  991,  36  L.  ed.  853] ; 
Tilghman  r.  Kartell,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,039, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  260,  11  Phila.  (Pa.)  500  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  99  U.  S.  547,  25 
L.  ed.  357];  Westlake  v.  Cartter,  29  Fed. 

[XIII,  C,  S] 


Cas.  No.  17,451,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  519,  4  Off. 
Gaz.  636. 

Use  must  be  unauthorized. —  Betts  v.  Will- 
mott,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  239,  25  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
188,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  369. 

Proof  of  infringement  is  necessary.  Bates 
v.  Coe,  98  U.  S.  31,  25  L.  ed.  68;  Fuller  v. 
Yentzer,  94  U.  S.  288,  24  L.  ed.  103.  See  also 
infra,  XIII,  C,  14,  b. 

That  infringement  must  be  before  suit  is 
brought  see  Humane  Bit  Co.  v.  Barnet,  117 
Fed.  316;  Slessinger  v.  Buckingham,  17  Fed. 
454,  8  Sawy.  469. 

2.  Henius  v.  Lublin,  30  Fed.  838;  Miller  v. 
Force,  9  Fed.  603;  Knight  v,  Baltimore,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,882,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.   1,  Taney  106;   Morgan  v.  McAdam,   15 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  348. 

Before  a  patent  is  granted,  no  suit  can  be 
maintained.  Rein  v.  Clayton,  37  Fed.  354,  3 
L.  R.  A.  78 ;  Wj^eth  v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,107,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  23,  1  Story  273. 

3.  Dunlap  v.  Schofield,   152  U.  S.  244,   14 
S.   Ct.   576,   38   L.  ed.  426.     And  see   Coupe 
v.  Royer,   155  U.  S.  565,   15  S.   Ct.   199,   39 
L.  ed.  263;  McComb  v.  Brodie,  15  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   8,708,   5   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   384,    1   Woods 
153,  2  Off.  Gaz.  117. 

Prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  statute  under 
consideration  it  seems  that  previous  notice  or 
claim  of  right  and  exclusive  use  of  device  was 
not  essential  to  enable  the  patentee  to  re- 
cover damages  for  infringement.  Ames  ?>. 
Howard,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  326,  1  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  689,  1  Sumn.  482. 

4.  Lorain  Steel  Co.  t\  New  York  Switch, 
etc.,  Co.,  153  Fed.  205. 

5.  Bredin  v.  National  Metal  Weatherstrip 
Co.,    147    Fed.    741     [affirmed    in    157    Fed. 
1003]. 

6.  To   suits  for  permanent  injunction  see 
infra,  XIII,  C,  11,  c. 

7.  See  supra,  XIII,  A,  6. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     995 


patent,3  or  is  not  entitled  to  maintain  the  suit  against  him  thereon,9  or  that  the 
patent  upon  which  suit  is  brought  is  void.10  The  fact  that  the  machine  of  a  pat- 
ent has  never  been  put  into  commercial  use  does  not  preclude  the  owner  of  the 
patent  from  maintaining  a  suit  in  equity  to  enjoin  its  infringement.11 

b.  Estoppel.  The  general  principles  of  estoppel  apply  in  suits  for 
infringement.12 

e.  Combination  in  Restraint  of  Trade.  It  is  no  defense  to  a  suit  upon  a 
patent  that  the  complainant  has  made  an  illegal  combination  with  others  in 
restraint  of  trade.18 


Failure  to  deny  is  admission.  Parker  v. 
Bamker,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,725,  6  McLean 
631. 

8.  Bunnett  v.  Smith,  2  D.  &  L.  380,  8  Jur. 
1634,    14  L.   J.   Exch.   47,    13  M.   &  W.   552. 
And  see  infra,  XIII,  C,  7,  a. 

Part  ownership  of  a  patent  is  a  complete 
defense.  Aspinwall  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Gill,  32  Fed. 
697. 

9.  License  is  a  complete  defense   (Hapgood 
V.  Hewitt,   119  U.  S.  226,   7   S.   Ct.   193,  30 
L.  ed.  369;  Eunson  v.  Dodge,  18  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
414,  21  L.  ed.  766;  Barber  v.  National  Car- 
bon  Co.,    129    Fed.    370,    64    C.    C.   A.   40,   5 
L.  R.  A.  N.  S.  1154;  Hammacher  v.  Wilson, 
26  Fed.  239    [affirmed  in   145  U.   S.  662,   12 
S.    Ct.    991,    36    L.    ed.    853];    Loercher    v. 
Crandal,  11  Fed.  872,  20  Blatchf.  106;  Black 
v.  Hubbard,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,460,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
39,  12  Off.  Gaz.  842 ;  Tilghman  v.  Kartell,  23 
Fed.    Cas.   No.    14,039,   2   Ban.   &  A.   260,   9 
Off.  Gaz.  886,  11  Phila.    (Pa.)   500  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  99  U.  S.  547,  25  L.  ed. 
357] ;  Westlake  v.  Cartter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,451,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  519,  4  Off.  Gaz.  636), 
except    where    its    conditions    are    violated 

(Jones  v.  Berger,  58  Fed.  1006;  Timken  v. 
Olin,  41  Fed.  169;  Fetter  v.  Newhall,  17 
Fed.  841,  21  Blatchf.  445). 

10.  Invalidity    is    a    complete    defense, — 
Bates  v.  Coe,  98  U.  S.  31,  25  L.  ed.  68;  Von 
Schmidt  v.  Bowers,  80  Fed.  121,  25  C.  C.  A. 
323;  Henius  v.  Lublin,  30  Fed.  838;  Shaw  v. 
Colwell  Lead   Co.,   11   Fed.   711,   20   Blatchf. 
417;  Miller  v.  Foree,  9  Fed.  603;  Knight  v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,882, 
3   Fish.  Pat.   Cas.    1,   Taney   106;   Morris  v. 
Huntington,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,831,  1  Paine 
348,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  448. 

The  defenses  are  not  confined  to  those  men- 
tioned in  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4920,  but 
include  any  showing  that  the  patent  is  void. 
Gardner  v.  Herz,  118  U.  S.  180,  6  S.  Ct.  1027, 
30  L.  ed.  158;  Thompson  v.  Boisselier,  114 
U.  S.  1,  5  S.  Ct.  1042,  29  L.  ed.  76;  Mahn  v. 
Harwood,  112  U.  S.  354,  5  S.  Ct.  174,  28 
L.  ed.  665. 

11.  Eastern  Paper  Bag  Co.  v.  Continental 
Paper  Bag  Co.,  150  Fed.  741  [affirmed  in  210 
U.   S.   405,   28   S.  Ct.   748].     And  see  U.   S. 
Fastener    Co.   v.   Bradley,    149   Fed.   222,   79 
C.  C.  A.  180. 

12.  Thomson  v.  Wooster,  114  U.  S.  104,  5 
S.  Ct.  788,  29  L.  ed.   105;   Russell  v.  Place, 
94   U.   S.    606,   24  L.   ed.   214;    Consolidated 
Rubber  Tire  Co.  v.  Finley  Rubber  Tire  Co., 
119  Fed.  705;  Jennings  v.  Rogers  Silver  Plate 
Co.,  118  Fed.  339;  Burrell  v.  Elgin  Creamery 


Co.,  96  Fed.  234;  Time  Tel.  Co.  v.  Himmer, 
19  Fed.  322.  See  also  supra,  VI,  F. 

Estoppel  as  assignor. —  The  assignor  can- 
not ordinarily  deny  the  validity  of  letters 
patent  (Griffith  v.  Shaw,  89  Fed.  313;  Dan- 
iel v.  Miller,  81  Fed.  1000);  but  the  rule 
does  not  apply  either  as  against  him  or  his. 
co-defendants,  where  the  latter  are  the  prin- 
cipal infringers  and  he  is  acting  merely  as. 
an  employee  (Boston  Lasting  Mach.  Co.  ?;. 
Woodward,  82  Fed.  97,  27  C.  C.  A.  69  [af- 
firming 75  Fed.  272]),  so  he  may  dispute  the 
alleged  scope  of  the  patent  in  view  of  the 
prior  art  (Smith  v.  Ridgely,  103  Fed.  875, 
43  C.  C.  A.  365;  Griffith  v.  Shaw,  89  Fed. 
313). 

One  who  fails  to  perform  his  agreement  to 
assign  a  patent  cannot  sue  his  proposed  as- 
signee for  infringement.  Schmitt  v.  Nelson 
Valve  Co.,  125  Fed.  754,  60  C.  C.  A.  522. 

Infringer  cannot  deny  utility.  Animarium 
Co.  v.  Filloon,  102  Fed.  896  [reversing  98 
Fed.  103]. 

Co-complainant  cannot  license  defendant 
and  defeat  the  suit.  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Haberman  Mfg.  Co.,  107  Fed.  487. 

Non-use  or  misuse  of  the  invention  by  com- 
plainant does  not  operate  as  estoppel.  Ful- 
ler v.  Berger,  120  Fed.  274,  56  C.  C.  A.  588. 

Admissions  in  open  court  are  binding. 
Kirchberger  v.  American  Acetylene  Burner 
Co.,  124  Fed.  764  [affirmed  in  128  Fed.  599. 
64  C.  C.  A.  107]. 

Holder  of  reissue  not  estopped  to  sue  one 
who  used  the  invention  prior  to  reissue. 
Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Aluminum  Stopper 
Co.,  108  Fed.  845,  48  C.  C.  A.  72  [reversing 
100  Fed.  849]. 

Filing  an  application  for  patent  for  the 
same  thing  does  not  estop  defendant,  but  has 
weight.  Haughey  v.  Lee,  151  U.  S.  282,  14 
S.  Ct.  331,  38  L.  ed.  162;  R.  Thomas,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Electric  Porcelain,  etc.,  Co.,  Ill  Fed. 
923. 

13.  Bement  v.  National  Harrow  Co.,  186 
U.  S.  70,  22  S.  Ct.  747,  46  L.  ed.  1058; 
Cimiotti  Unhairing  Co.  v.  American  Fur  Re- 
fining Co.,  120  Fed.  672;  Otis  Elevator  Co. 
V.  Geiger,  107  Fed.  131;  National  Folding- 
Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Robertson,  99  Fed.  985; 
Brown  Saddle  Co.  v.  Troxel,  98  Fed.  620; 
Bonsack  Mach.  Co.  v.  Smith,  70  Fed.  383; 
Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Sawyer-Man 
Electric  Co.,  53  Fed.  592,  3  C.  C.  A.  605 
[modifying  52  Fed.  300].  But  see  Good  v. 
Daland,  121  N.  Y.  1,  24  N.  E.  15;  Indiana 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  J.  I.  Case  Threshing  Mach.  Co., 
148  Fed.  21. 

[XIII,  C,  6,  e] 


996     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


d.  Limitations  and  Laches  —  (i)  LIMITATIONS.  By  express  provisions  of  a 
recent  federal  enactment  no  damages  can  be  recovered  for  acts  of  infringement 
occurring  more  than  six  years  before  suit  is  brought.14  So  by  express  provision 
this  statute  applies  to  all  existing  causes  of  action ; 15  and  it  is  held  to  apply  to 
actions  at  law  as  well  as  to  suits  in  equity.16  In  all  cases  where  a  federal  statute 
of  limitation  exists,  state  statutes  of  limitation  can  have  no  application.17  But 
prior  to  1870,18  and  subsequent  to  1874,19  no  federal  statutes  existed  limiting  the 
time  within  which  actions  for  infringement  of  patents  must  be  brought,  and  the 
question  frequently  arose  whether  actions  at  law  were  subject  to  state  statutes  of 
limitation,  there  being  considerable  conflict  in  the  decisions.20  This  question  was 
finally  set  at  rest  by  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  which  held  that  in 
the  absence  of  federal  legislation  the  statutes  of  limitation  of  the  several  states 
were  applicable.21 

(n)  JLACHES  —  (L)  In  General  —  (1)  As  BAB  TO  PERMANENT  INJUNCTION. 
Mere  delay  in  bringing  a  suit  for  infringement,  unaccompanied  by  such  deceitful 
acts  or  silence  on  the  part  of  the  patentee,  and  by  such  circumstances  as  amount 
to  an  equitable  estoppel,  will  not  warrant  the  application  of  the  doctrine  of  laches 
to  such  a  suit  within  the  time  fixed  by  statute  for  the  commencement  of  the 
analogous  action  at  law.22  Thus  mere  delay  in  bringing  suit  for  infringement  of 
a  patent  will  not  prevent  the  owner  thereof  from  obtaining  relief  in  a  court  of 
equity  when  the  infringement  has  been  persisted  in  with  knowledge  of  the  pat- 
ent, and  there  have  been  no  acts  of  commission  or  omission  on  the  part  of  the 


14.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.     (1878)     §    4921,    as 
amended  March  3,   1897,  29  U.  S.  St.  at  L. 
693  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.   (1901)  p.  3395]. 

15.  U.    S.    Rev.    St.     (1878)     §    4921,    as 
amended  March  3,   1897.  29  U.  S.  St!  at  L. 
693  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3395];  Ameri- 
can Pneumatic  Tool   Co.  v.  Pratt,  etc.,  Co., 
106  Fed.  229. 

16.  Peters    v.    Hanger,    134    Fed.    586,    67 
C.  C.  A.  386. 

17.  Hayden  v.  Oriental  Mills,  22  Fed.  103; 
Sayles  v.  "Louisville  City  R.  Co.,  9  Fed.  512; 
Sayles  v.  Oregon  Cent.  R.  Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,423,  4  Ban.  &  A.  429,  8  Reporter  424, 
6  Sawy.  31 ;  Sayles  v.  Dubuque,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,417,  3  Ban.  &  A.  219,  5 
Dill.  561;  Sayles  v.  Richmond,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    12,424,   4   Ban.   &   A.   239,   3 
Hughes  172,  7  Reporter  743,  16  Off.  Gaz.  43; 
Vaughan  v.  East  Tennessee,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  28 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    16,898,   2   Ban.   &  A.   537,    1 
Flipp.  621,  11  Off.  Gaz.  789. 

18.  Campbell  v.  New  York,   81   Fed.   182; 
Hayden  v.  Oriental  Mills,  22  Fed.  103;  Par- 
ker v.   Hallock,   18  Fed.   Cas.  No.    10,735,   2 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  543  note;  Wood  v.  Cleveland 
Rolling-Mill  Co.,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,941,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  550. 

19.  Campbell  v.  Haverhill,   155  U.  S.  610, 
15  S.  Ct.  217,  39  L.  ed.  280;  May  v.  Logan, 
30  Fed.  250. 

20.  Cases  holding  that  state  statutes  con- 
trol.—Hayden  v.  Oriental  Mills,  15  Fed.  605; 
Parker  v.  Hawk,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,737,  2 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  58. 

Cases  adopting  the  contrary  view. — 
Brickill  v.  Baltimore,  52  Fed.  737;  Brickill 
V.  Buffalo,  49  Fed.  371;  California  Artificial 
Stone  Paving  Co.  v.  Starr,  48  Fed.  560;  Mc- 
Ginnis  v.  Erie  County,  45  Fed.  91;  May  v. 
Rails  County,  31  Fed.  473;  May  V.  Cass 

[XIII,  C,  6,  d,  (I)] 


County,  30  Fed.  762;  May  v.  Logan  County, 
30  Fed.  250;  Hayward  v.  St.  Louis,  11  Fed. 
427,  3  McCrary  614;  Collins  v.  Peebles,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,017,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  541. 

21.  Campbell  v.  Haverhill,   155  U.  S.  610, 

15  S.  Ct.  217,  39  L.  ed.  280. 

22.  Ide  t/.  Trorlicht,  etc.,  Carpet  Co.,  115 
Fed.    137,    53    C.    C.    A.    341;    Stearns-Roger 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Brown,  114  Fed.  939,  52  C.  C.  A. 
559;  Imperial  Chemical  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stein,  77 
Fed.  612,  23  C.  C.  A.  353   [reversing  69  Fed. 
616] ;  Taylor  v.  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.,  75  Fed. 
301,  22  C.  C.  A.  203;  Bragg  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hart- 
ford, 56  Fed.  292;  Price  v.  Joliet  Steel  Co., 
46  Fed.  107;  New  York  Grape  Sugar  Co.  v. 
Buffalo   Grape   Sugar    Co.,    18    Fed.    638,    21 
Blatchf.    519;    Atlantic    Giant-Powder   Co.    v. 
Rand,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  626,  4  Ban.  &  A.  263, 

16  Blatchf.  250,   16  Off.  Gaz.  87;   Stevens  v. 
Felt,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,397.    The  mere  dis- 
continuance of  proceedings  against  infringers 
and   forbearance   to   sue   any   of   the   parties 
thereto  for  a  period  of  a  year  or  more  there- 
after   cannot    be    construed    into    an    acqui- 
escence   in   the    infringement    complained   of. 
Thompson  v.  Jewett,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,961. 

Conduct  held  to  constitute  laches  see  Wil- 
cox,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Farrand  Organ  Co.,  139  Fed. 
46;  American  Tube  Works  v.  Bridgewater 
Iron  Co.,  132  Fed.  16,  65  C.  C.  A.  636  (three 
years  after  knowledge  of  infringement)  ; 
Meyrowitz  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Eccleston,  98  Fed. 
437;  McLaughlin  v.  People's  R.  Co.,  21  Fed. 
574;  Goodyear  v.  Honsinger,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,572,  2  Biss.  1,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  147 ;  Wyeth 
v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,107,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  23,  1  Story  273. 

Conduct  held  not  to  constitute  laches  see 
New  York  Phonograph  Co.  v.  Edison,  136 
Fed.  600;  Carter  v.  Wollschlaeger,  53  Fed. 
573. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     997 


patentee  to  encourage  its  use,23  nor  where  it  appears  that  during  the  delay  another 
suit  was  pending  for  infringement  by  a  machine  substantially  the  same  as  defend- 
ant's.24 An  injunction  will  not,  however,  be  granted  in  any  case  where  the  party 
applying  for  it  has  not  shown  good  faith,  conscience,  activity,  and  diligence,  nor 
where  there  is  any  doubt  or  uncertainty  as  to  the  facts.25  So  where  a  patentee, 
with  knowledge  of  a  device  made  by  defendant,  makes  no  claim  of  infringement 
for  several  years,  he  will  be  held  estopped  to  thereafter  place  a  different  construc- 
tion on  his  patent,  for  the  purpose  of  making  out  a  case  of  infringement.26  A 
patentee  cannot  maintain  an  action  of  infringement  against  a  mere  user  who,  in 
common  with  the  public  generally,  has  used  the  patented  device  for  a  period  of 
eleven  years  with  the  full  knowledge  of  the  patentee  and  without  objection.27 
Where  there  is  no  acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the  patentee,  nor  conscious  infringe- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  defendants,  there  is  no  moral  delinquency  on  either  side, 
or  an  actual  estoppel ;  and  both  parties  being  innocent,  diligence  will  be  required 
of  him  whose  property  is  to  be  protected,  and  the  patentee  will  be  left  to  his 
action  for  damages.28 

(2)  As  BAR  TO  PRELIMINARY  INJUNCTION.  The  granting  or  withholding  of  a 
preliminary  injunction  in  an  infringement  suit  is  within  the  proper  discretion  of 
the  court.  Where  a  patentee  has  known  of  infringement  of  his  patent,  and  has 
acquiesced  therein  for  a  considerable  length  of  time,  a  preliminary  injunction  will 
not  be  granted  without  an  explanation  of  such  acquiescence.29  It  will  be  with- 
held when  apparently  sought  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an  undue  advantage,80 
for  the  purpose  of  creating  mischief,31  or  of  coercing  a  compromise.32  But  mere 


23.  Wilcox,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Farrand  Organ  Co., 
139  Fed.  46. 

24.  Flecker  v.  Poorman,  147  Fed.  528. 

25.  Cooper   v.   Mattheys,   6  Fed.   Gas.  No. 
3,200,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  38.     And  see  Beid-Archer 
Co.  v.   North   American   Chemical,   etc.,   Co., 
147  Fed.  746. 

26.  McGill  v.  Whitehead,  etc.,  Co.,  137  Fed. 
97 ;   Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wag- 
ner Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  129  Fed.  604. 

A  delay  of  ten  years  by  a  patent  owner 
after  knowledge  of  an  alleged  infringement, 
and  correspondence  with  defendant,  who  in 
good  faith  contended  for  a  construction  of 
the  patent  avoiding  infringement,  is  such 
laches  as  will  bar  all  relief  in  equity.  Star- 
rett  v.  J.  Stevens  Arms,  etc.,  Co.,  96  Fed. 
244. 

27.  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Equitable 
L.  Assur.  Soc.,  55  Fed.  478. 

28.  Merriam  v.  Smith,   11   Fed.  588. 

29.  Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Electric  Storage 
Battery    Co.,    64    Fed.    775;    Price    v.    Joliet 
Steel  Co.,  46  Fed.  107;  Waite  v.  Chichester 
Chair    Co.,    45    Fed.    258;    Keyes    v.    Pueblo 
Smelting,,   etc.,    Co.,    31    Fed.    560;    Ladd    v. 
Cameron,  25  Fed.  37;  Mundy  v.  Kendall,  23 
Fed.   591;    United  Nickel  Co.   v.  New   Home 
Sewing  Mach.   Co.,   17   Fed.  528,  21  Blatchf. 
415;  Goodyear  v.  Honsinger,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,572,  2  Biss.  1,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  147 ;  Green 
v.    French,    10    Fed.    Cas.   No.    5,757,   4   Ban. 
&  A.    169,    16   Off.   Gaz.   215;   North  v.  Ker- 
shaw,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,311,  4  Blatchf.  70; 
Sloat  v.  Plymton,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   12,948; 
Sperry  v.  Ribbans,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,238, 
3  Ban.   &  A.  260;    Spring  V.  Domestic   Sew- 
ing-Mach.    Co.,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No.    13,258,    4 
Ban.  &  A.  427,  16  Off.  Gaz.  721 ;  Whitney  v. 
Rollstone   Mach.    Works,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No. 


17,596,  2  Ban.  &  A.  170,  8  Off.  Gaz.  908; 
Bovill  V.  Crate,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  388;  Bridson  v. 
Benecke,  12  Beav.  1,  50  Eng.  Reprint  960; 
Flavel  v.  Harrison,  10  Hare  467,  17  Jur.  368, 
22  L.  J.  Ch.  866,  1  Wkly.  Rep.  213,  44  Eng. 
Ch.  452,  68  Eng.  Reprint  1010;  Baxter  v. 
Combe,  1  Ir.  Ch.  284. 

A  delay  of  eighteen  months,  after  knowl- 
edge of  an  infringement,  in  applying  for  a 
preliminary  injunction,  is  Of  itself  good 
ground  for  its  refusal.  Hockholzer  v.  Eager, 
12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,556,  2  Sawy.  361. 

A  delay  of  three  months  in  filing  a  bill 
after  the  infringement  was  ascertained,  de- 
fendant not  having  been  induced  to  change 
his  position,  is  no  ground  for  refusing  an  in- 
junction. Union  Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Binney,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,387,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  166. 

One  who  is  known  to  the  patentee  to  be 
using  his  patent  in  apparent  good  faith  is 
entitled  to  definite  and  early  information  of 
the  patentee's  construction  of  his  own  rights, 
and  of  his  intention  to  enforce  them.  Morris 
v.  Lowell  Mfg.  Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,833, 
3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  37. 

A  preliminary  injunction  will  not  issue 
against  a  mere  user  of  a  machine,  when  the 
patentee  has  known  for  several  years  that 
the  makers  thereof  were  manufacturing  such 
machines  and  did  not  warn  or  proceed  against 
them  or  any  one  else.  Ballou  Shoe-Mach. 
Co.  v.  Dizer,  85  Fed.  864. 

30.  Ney  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Superior  Drill  Co.,  56 
Fed.  152. 

31.  Neilson  v.  Thompson,  Web.  Pat.   Cas. 
275. 

32.  Parker    r.    Sears,    18    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
10,748,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93,  4  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep. 
443. 

[XIII,  C,  6,  d,  (n),  (A),  (2)] 


998     [SOCyc.]  PATENTS 

forbearance  to  sue  for  a  reasonable  time,  after  notice  given,  will  not,  in  the 
absence  of  any  affirmative  encouragement  to  defendant,  affect  plaintiff's  right  to 
a  preliminary  injunction  in  a  plain  case.83  Nor  will  a  delay  of  several  years, 
after  knowledge  of  defendant's  infringement,  affect  the  right  to  a  preliminary 
injunction,  where  his  proceedings  had  been  the  subject  of  dispute  and  negotia- 
tion during  the  whole  period.34  And  where  it  seems  apparent  that  an  injunction 
at  the  final  hearing  is  inevitable,  an  injunction  pendents  lite  will  be  granted,  not- 
withstanding laches  of  the  complainant  in  asserting  his  rights.35 

(3)  As  BAB  TO  ACCOUNTING  FOB  PBOFITS.  Mere  delay  in  seeking  relief 
against  in f ringers  is  in  general  sufficient  to  preclude  a  patentee  from  the  right  to 
an  account  for  past  profits,  although  it  may  not  prevent  an  injunction.86  A 
fortiori  where  the  infringers  have  acted  in  good  faith,  and  there  has  been 
acquiescence  and  inexcusable  laches  on  the  part  of  the  patentee,  a  decree  for  an 
accounting  will  not  be  granted.37  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  there  must  be 
something  more  than  mere  lapse  of  time  to  bar  an  accounting.88 

(B)  Excuses  For  Delay  —  (1)  IGNOBANCE  OF  INFBINGEMENT.  Long  acquies- 
cence and  laches  on  the  part  of  a  patentee  may  be  excused  by  satisfactory  proof 
that  he  had  no  knowledge  or  means  of  knowledge  that  his  patent  was  being 
infringed.39  But  a  patentee  cannot  stand  by  with  u  easy  indifference  "  when  there 
are  facts  sufficient  to  put  him  on  notice,  and  then  plead  ignorance  as  an  excuse 
for  his  laches.40  Where  the  complainant's  suspicions  of  infringement  are  allayed 
by  the  direct  misrepresentations  of  defendant,  delay  in  applying  for  an  injunction 
does  not  constitute  Jaches.41 

(2)  OTHEB  EXCUSES.  Delay  in  prosecuting  other  infringers  while  the  validity 
of  the  patent  is  in  active  litigation  does  not  constitute  laches.42  So  delay  in  suing 
an  infringer  may  be  excused  on  the  ground  that  the  infringing  article,  as  at  first 
constructed  by  defendant,  was  not  believed  by  complainant  to  be  commercially 
harmful,  the  grounds  for  such  belief  being  reasonable.43  Nor  is  laches  to  be 
imputed  to  a  patent  owner  because  of  his  failure  to  prosecute  to  judgment  a  suit 
against  an  infringer  after  the  latter  has  become  totally  insolvent,44  or  when  it 
appears  that  the  complainant  was  disabled  from  carrying  on  litigation  by  lack  of 

33.  Loring  v.  Booth,  52  Fed.  150;   Collig-  42.  Hutter    v.    Koscherak,    137    Fed.    92; 
non  v.  Hayes,  8  Fed.  912.  U.  S.  Mitis  Co.  v.  Detroit  Steel,  etc.,  Co.,  122 

34.  National  Heeling-Mach.  Co.  v.  Abbott,  Fed.  863,  59  C.  C.  A.  589    (six  months  after 
77   Fed.   462.  adjudication  of  validity)  ;  Timolat  v.  Frank- 

35.  Brush    Electric    Co.    v.    Electric    Imp.  lin  Boiler  Works  Co.,  122  Fed.  69,  58  C.  C.  A. 
Co.,  45  Fed.  241.  405;    Steams-Roger  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Brown,    114 

36.  Price  v.  Joliet  Steel  Co.,  46  Fed.  107;  Fed.  939,  52  C.  C.  A.  559;  New  York  Filter 
New  York  Grape  Sugar  Co.  v.  Buffalo  Grape  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  91  Fed.  422;  New  York 
Sugar  Co.,  18  Fed.  638,  21  Blatchf.  519.  Filter  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Loomis-Manning  Filter  Co., 

Where  a  patent  has  been  infringed  by  de-  91  Fed.  421;  Norton  v.  Eagle  Automatic  Can 

fendant  for  seven  years,  with  the  knowledge  Co.,  57  Fed.  929;  Jonathan  Mills  Mfg.  Co.  t\ 

of  the  complainant,  and  without  a  word  of  Whitehurst,  56  Fed.  589;  American  Bell  Tel. 

protest,  a  decree  for  an  accounting  will  not  Co.  v.  Southern  Tel.  Co.,  34  Fed.  795; 

be  granted.  Westinghouse  Air  Brake  Co.  v.  Atlantic  Giant-Powder  Co.  v.  Rand,  2  Fed. 

New  York  Air  Brake  Co.,  Ill  Fed.  741.  Cas.  No.  626,  4  Ban.  &  A.  263,  16  Blatchf. 

A  delay  of  fourteen  years  in  bringing  suit,  250,  16  Off.  Gaz.  87;  Colgate  v.  Gold,  etc., 

while  the  owner  of  the  patent  knew  that  de-  Tel.  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,991,  4  Ban.  &  A. 

fendant  was  continually  engaged  in  infring-  415,  16  Blatchf.  503,  16  Off.  Gaz.  583;  Green 

ing,  is  a  bar  to  a  decree  for  an  accounting.  v.  French,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,757,  4  Ban. 

Covert  v.  Travers  Bros.  Co.,  96  Fed.  568.  &  A.  169,  16  Off.  Gaz.  215,  2  N.  J.  L.  J. 

37.  Keller  v.  Stolzenbach,  28  Fed.  81.  148. 

38.  American  Street   Car  Advertising  Co.          A  patentee  is  not  obliged  to  proceed  against 
v.    Jones,    122    Fed.    803    [reversed  on   other  all    infringers    at    the    same    time,    and    ac- 
grounds  in  142  Fed.  974,   74  C.  C.  A.  236].  quiescence    will    not    be    inferred    from    his 

39.  Wortendyke  v.  White,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  neglect   to   do   so.     McWilliams   Mfg.    Co.   v. 
18,050,  2  Ban.   &  A.   25.  Blundell,   11   Fed.  419. 

40.  New  York  Grape  Sugar  Co.  v.  Buffalo  43.  Accumulator  Co.  v.  Edison  Electric  II- 
Grape  Sugar  Co.,  24  Fed.  604.  luminating  Co.,  63  Fed.  979. 

41.  Wortendyke  v.  White,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  44.  Huntington  Dry-Pulverizer  Co.  v.  New- 
18,050,  2  Ban.  &  A.  25.  ell  Universal  Mill  Co.,  91  Fed.  661. 

[XIII,  C,  6,  d,  (II),  (A),  (2)] 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     999 


financial  means.45  It  is  no  excuse  for  delay  that  his  coowners  of  the  patent  would 
not  agree  to  prosecute  infringers.46 

(c)  Laches  of  Prior  Owner.  The  negligence  or  acquiescence  of  a  former 
owner  of  a  patent  in  an  alleged  infringement  has,  in  equity,  the  same  effect  upon 
his  assignee's  rights  as  his  own  neglect  or  acquiescence.47  Subsequent  purchasers 
of  a  patent  succeed  only  to  the  rights  of  their  assignors  and  are  chargeable  with 
their  laches  in  failing  for  a  considerable  time  after  knowledge  of  an  infringement 
to  take  steps  to  stop  it.48 

7.  PERSONS  ENTITLED  TO  SUE  AND  PARTIES  PLAINTIFF  49  —  a.  In  General.  A  party 
interested  as  patentee,  assignee,  or  grantee,50  and  any  one  holding  the  patent  in 


45.  Bradford    v.    Belknap   Motor    Co.,    105 
Fed.  63  [affirmed  in  115  Fed.  711,  53  C.  C.  A. 
293]. 

While  a  patent  is  in  a  court  of  bankruptcy, 
laches  can  be  imputed  to  no  one.  Kittle  v. 
Hall,  29  Fed.  508.  It  is  not  the  duty  of  an 
assignee  in  bankruptcy  to  institute  suits  for 
the  infringement  of  a  patent  owned  by  the 
bankrupt,  and  his  failure  to  do  so  is  not 
negligence.  Kittle  v.  Hall,  supra. 

46.  Richardson  v.  D.  M.  Osborne,  etc.,  Co., 
93   Fed.   828,  36  C.   C.  A.   610    [affirming  82 
Fed.  95]. 

47.  Woodmanse,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Williams, 
68  Fed.  489,  15  C.  C.  A.  520. 

48.  New  York  Grape  Sugar  Co.  v.  Buffalo 
Grape  Sugar  Co.,  24  Fed.  604;  Spring  v.  Do- 
mestic   Sewing-Mach.   Co.,   22    Fed.   Cas.   No. 
12,258,  4  Ban.  &  A.  427,  16  Off.  Gaz.  721,  2 
N.  J.  L.  J.  274. 

A  party  who  purchases  a  patent  which  has 
for  years  been  freely  plundered  by  a  multi- 
tude of  trespassers  does  not  answer  the 
charge  of  laches  by  showing  that  he  com- 
menced immediately  after  he  acquired  title 
to  bring  the  wrong-doers  to  account.  Kittle 
v.  Hall,  29  Fed.  508. 

49.  See,  generally,  PARTIES. 

50.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4919   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  3394]. 

Until  he  has  parted  with  his  legal  title  to 
the  patent,  the  patentee  may  sue.  Phila- 
delphia, etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Trimble,  10  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  367,  19  L.  ed.  948;  Ormsby  v.  Con- 
nors, 133  Fed.  548;  Freese  v.  Swartchild,  35 
Fed.  141;  Still  v.  Reading,  9  Fed.  40,  4 
Woods  345;  Hussey  v.  Whitely,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,950,  1  Bond  407,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  120; 
Park  v.  Little,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,715,  1 
Rotb  Pat.  Cas.  17,  3  Wash.  196;  Sanford  v. 
Messer,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,314,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  411,  Holmes  149,  2  Off.  Gaz.  470. 

Owner  necessary  party. —  The  legal  owner 
is  a  necessary  party  complainant.  Tilghman 
v.  Proctor,  125  U.  S.  136,  8  S.  Ct.  894,  31 
L.  ed.  664;  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sargent, 
117  U.  S.  536,  6  S.  Ct.  934,  29  L.  ed.  954; 
Milwaukee  Carving  Co.  v.  Brunswick-Balke 
Collender  Co.,  126  Fed.  171,  61  C.  C.  A.  175; 
Owatonna  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fargo,  94  Fed.  519; 
Gornmlly,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Stanley  Cycle 
Mfg.  Co.,  90  Fed.  279;  Carpenter  v.  Eber- 
hard  Mfg.  Co.,  78  Fed.  127;  Dueber  Watch- 
Case  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fahys  Watch-Case  Co.,  45 
Fed.  697;  Herbert  v.  Adams,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,394,  4  Mason  15,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
505;  North  v.  Kershaw,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 


10,311,  4  Blatchf.  70;  Potter  v.  Wilson,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,342,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  102. 

Joinder. — All  legal  owners  must  join.  Tyler 
v.  Tuel,  6  Cranch  (U.  S.)  324,  3  L.  ed.  237; 
Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  v.  Netter,  102  Fed.  691; 
Van  Orden  v.  Nashville,  67  Fed.  331 ;  Edgerton 
v.  Breck,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,279,  5  Ban.  &  A. 
42;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,519, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  232,  7  Phila.  (Pa.)  533; 
Knight  v.  Gavit,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,884; 
Stein  v.  Goddard,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,353,  1 
McAllister  82;  Valentine  v.  Marshal,  28  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,812a;  Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,600,  1  Gall.  429,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  28.  Compare  Sheehan  v.  Great 
Eastern  R.  Co.,  16  Ch.  D.  59,  50  L.  J.  Ch.  68, 
43  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  432,  29  Wkly.  Rep. 
69. 

Disclaimer. —  One  who  appears  from  record 
to  be  part-owner  may  disclaim  ownership. 
Graham  v.  Geneva  Lake  Crawford  Mfg.  Co., 
11  Fed.  138. 

Legal  and  equitable  owners  should  join  in 
equity  suit.  Chisholm  v.  Johnson,  106  Fed. 
191;  Clement  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Upson,  etc.,  Co.,  40 
Fed.  471  ;  Otis  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Crane  Bros. 
Mfg.  Co.,  27  Fed.  550  [affirmed  in  136  U.  S. 
646,  10  S.  Ct.  1072,  34  L.  ed.  553] ;  Goodyear 
v.  Allyn,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,555,  6  Blatchf. 
33,  3  *Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  374 ;  Goodyear  v.  New 
Jersey  Cent.  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,563, 
1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  626,  2  Wall.  Jr.  356 ;  Stimp- 
son  t7.  Rogers,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,457,  4 
Blatchf.  333. 

An  attorney  in  fact  cannot  bring  suit. 
Goldsmith  v.  American  Paper  Collar  Co.,  2 
Fed.  239,  18  Blatchf.  82. 

Selling  agent  cannot  bring  suit.  Adams 
v.  North  British  R.  Co.,  29  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
367. 

Only  those  having  interest  in  patent  should 
be  joined  as  plaintiffs.  Chisholm  v.  Johnson, 
106  Fed.  191. 

Amendment. —  Suit  should  not  be  dis- 
missed for  misjoinder  but  amendment  per- 
mitted (Tesla  Electric  Co.  v.  Scott,  97  Fed. 
588),  or  party  dismissed  from  suit  (Edgar- 
ton  v.  Breck,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,279,  5  Ban. 
&  A.  42). 

Technical  defense  as  to  legal  ownership  by 
complainant  is  not  favored.  McMichael,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Ruth,  128  Fed.  706,  63  C.  C.  A. 
304  [reversing  123  Fed.  888] ;  Kansas  City 
Hay-Press  Co.  v.  Devol,  81  Fed.  726,  26 
C.  C.  A.  578  [reversing  72  Fed.  717],  84 
Fed.  463,  28  C.  C.  A.  464;  A.  B.  Dick  Co.  v. 
Henry,  75  Fed.  388;  Kearney  v.  Lehigh  Val- 

[XIII,  C,  7,  a] 


1000     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


trust,  including  the  executor  or  administrator,  may  bring  suit  for  infringement 
in  his  own  name.51 

b.  Licenses  —  (i)  IN  SUITS  AGAINST  STRANGERS.  A  licensee  of  a  patent 
cannot  bring  a  suit  in  his  own  name,  either  at  law  or  in  equity,  for  its  infringe- 
ment by  a  stranger.52  An  action  at  law  for  the  benefit  of  an  exclusive  license 
must  be  brought  in  the  name  of  the  patentee  alone.53  A  suit  in  equity  may  be 


ley  R.  Co.,  27  Fed.  699;  Graham  v.  Mc- 
Cormick,  11  Fed.  859,  10  Biss.  39;  Graham  v. 
Geneva  Lake  Crawford  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed. 
138. 

Patentee  may  sue  for  past  infringement 
after  assigning  patent.  Moore  v.  Marsh,  7 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  515,  19  L.  ed.  37. 

That  territorial  assignee  may  sue  without 
joining  patentee  see  Waterman  v.  Mackenzie, 
138  U.  S.  252,  11  S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923; 
Wilson  v.  Rousseau,  4  How.  (U.  S.)  646,  11 
L.  ed.  1141;  Russell  v.  Kendall,  58  Fed.  381; 
Canton  Steel  Roofing  Co.  v.  Kanneberg,  51 
Fed.  599;  Bicknell  v.  Todd,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,389,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  452,  5  McLean  236; 
Perry  v.  Corning,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,004, 
7  Blatchf.  195;  Washburn  v.  Gould,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,214,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  206,  3 
Story  122. 

Assignee  of  entire  interest  may  sue  with- 
out joining  patentee.  Waterman  v.  Macken- 
zie, 138  U.  S.  252,  11  S.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed. 
923;  Gayler  v.  Wilder,  10  How.  (U.  S.)  477, 
13  L.  ed.  504;  Lincoln  Ironworks  v.  W.  H. 
McWhirter  Co.,  131  Fed.  880;  Newton  v. 
Buck,  72  Fed.  777  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  77  Fed.  614,  23  C.  C.  A.  355];  Rapp  v. 
Kelling,  41  Fed.  792;  Siebert  Cylinder  Oil- 
Cup  Co.  v.  Beggs,  32  Fed.  790;  Herman  v. 
Herman,  29  Fed.  92;  Nellis  v.  Pennock  Mfg. 
Co.,  13  Fed.  451;  Seibert  Cylinder  Oil-Cup 
Co.  v.  Phillips  Lubricator  Co.,  10  Fed.  677; 
Jenkins  v.  Greenwald,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,270, 
1  Bond  126,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  37;  Suydam  v. 
Day,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,654,  2  Blatchf.  20, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  88. 

Assignee  of  part  should  join  the  patentee 
with  him.  Yates  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co.,  24 
Grant  Ch.  (U.  C.)  495. 

Conditions  in  the  assignment  do  not  neces- 
sarily take  away  the  right  of  assignee  to 
sue  alone.  Littlefield  v.  Perry,  21  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  205,  22  L.  ed.  577;  Union  Trust  Co. 
v.  Walker  Electric  Co.,  122  Fed.  814;  Platt 
V.  Fire-Extinguisher  Mfg.  Co.,  59  Fed.  897,  8 
C.  C.  A.  357;  Russell  v.  Kern,  58  Fed.  382; 
Pope  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Clark,  46  Fed.  789;  Hobbie 
v.  Smith,  27  Fed.  656;  Frankfort  Whisky 
Process  Co.  v.  Pepper,  26  Fed.  336. 

51.  One  holding  legal  title  in  trust  may 
sue.  Waterman  v.  Mackenzie,  138  U.  S.  252, 
US.  Ct.  334,  34  L.  ed.  923;  Bryan  v. 
Stevens,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,066a;  Dibble  v. 
Augur,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,879,  7  Blatchf.  86; 
Knight  ?;.  Gavit,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,884. 

Executor  or  administrator  may  sue. —  De 
La  Vergne  Refrigerating  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Featherstone,  147  U.  S.  209,  13  S.  Ct.  283, 
37  L.  ed.  138;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Tur- 
rill,  110  U.  S.  301,  4  S.  Ct.  5,  28  L.  ed.  154; 
Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  788,  .19  L.  ed.  566;  May  v.  Logan 

[XIII,  C,  7,  a] 


County,  30  Fed.  250;  Hodge  v.  North  Mis- 
souri R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,561,  1  Dill. 
104,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  161. 

Assignee  of  foreign  administrator  may  sue, 
although  no  ancillary  letters  of  administra- 
tion taken  out.  Smith  v.  Mercer,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,078,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  529. 

Heirs  need  not  join  administrator.  Haar- 
manri  v.  Lueders,  109  Fed.  325;  Hodge  r. 
North  Missouri  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,561,  1  Dill.  104,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  161. 

Assignee  of  heirs. —  One  having  assignment 
from  heirs  after  administrator  discharged 
has  title  and  may  sue.  Winkler  v.  Stude- 
baker  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  105  Fed.  190.  Cestui 
que  trust  for  profits  need  not  be  joined. 
Goodyear  v.  Day,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,566. 

Mortgagor  may  sue  without  joining  mort- 
gagee. Van  Gelder  v.  Sowerby  Bridge  United 
Dist.  Flour  Soc.,  44  Ch.  D.  374,  59  L.  J.  Ch. 
535,  63  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  132,  38  Wkly.  Rep. 
625. 

52.  Watertown  v.  Mackenzie,  138  U.  S.  252, 
11    S.    Ct.    334,    34    L.    ed.    923;    Birdsell    v. 
Shaliol,  112  U.  S.  485,  5  S.  Ct.  244,  28  L.  ed. 
768;  Paper-Bag  Mach.  Cases,   105  U.  S.  766, 
26   L.    ed.   959;    Gayler  v.  Wilder,    10   How. 
(U.  S.)  477,  13  L.  ed.  504;  Excelsior  Wooden 
Pipe  Co.  v.  Seattle,  117  Fed.  140,  55  C.  C.  A. 
156 ;  Bowers  Hydraulic  Dredging  Co.  v .  Vare, 
112   Fed.   63;   New  York   Continental  Jewell 
Filtration    Co.    v.    Sullivan,    111    Fed.    179; 
Chauche  v.  Pare,   75   Fed.   283,  21    C.   C.   A. 
329;   Moore  Mfg.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cronk  Hanger 
Co.,  69  Fed.  998;  Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Cali- 
fornia   Electric    Light    Co.,    52    Fed.    945,    3 
C.    C.    A.    368;    Rice    v.    Boss,    46    Fed.    195; 
Cottlc  v.  Krementz,  25   Fed.  494;    Bogart  v. 
Hinds,  25  Fed.  484;  Wilson  v.  Chickering,  14 
Fed.   917;    Gamewell   Fire- Alarm  Tel.   Co.  v. 
Brooklyn,    14    Fed.    255;    Blanchard    v.    El- 
dridge/  3   Fed.   Cas.   No.    1,510,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  737,  1  Wall.  Jr.  337;  Grover,  etc.,  Sew- 
ing-Mach.    Co.    v.    Sloat,    11    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
5,846,   2   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   112;   Hill  v.  Whit- 
comb,    12   Fed.   Cas.  No.   6,502,   1   Ban.  &  A. 
34,    Holmes    317,    5    Off.    Gaz.    430;    Nelson 
v.  McMann,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,109,  4  Ban. 
&  A.  203,   16  Blatchf.   139,   16  Off.  Gaz.  761; 
Potter   r.  Holland,   19  Fed.  Cas.  No.    11,329, 
4  Blatchf.  206,  1   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  327;    San- 
ford   v.   Messer,   21   Fed.   Cas.   No.    12,314,   5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  411,  Holmes  149,  2  Off.  Gaz. 
470;  Suydam  v.  Day,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,654, 
2  Blatchf.   20,   Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  88.    Compare 
Brammer  v.  Jones,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,806,  2 
Bond  100,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  340. 

53.  Waterman  v.  Mackenzie,  138  U.  S.  252, 
11    S.    Ct.    334,    34    L.    ed.    923;    Birdsell    v. 
Shaliol,  112  U.  S.  485,  5  S.  Ct.  244,  28  L.  ed. 
768;    Goodyear    v.    McBurney,    10    Fed.    Cas. 
No.  5,574,  3  Blatchf.  32;  Nelson  v.  McMann, 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1001 


brought  by  the  patentee  and  the  exclusive  licensee  together.54  Indeed,  an  exclusive 
licensee  may  join  the  patentee  with  him  as  party  complainant  even  against  his 
will.55  But  a  simple  licensee  has  no  such  interest  as  to  make  him  either  a  neces- 
sary or  a  proper  party  to  an  infringement  suit.56  Nor  is  a  licensee  whose  license 
is  not  such  as  to  amount  to  an  assignment  of  the  patent  a  necessary  party 
complainant  in  such  a  suit.57 

(n)  IN  SUITS  AGAINST  PATENTEE.  Where,  however,  the  patentee  himself 
is  the  inf ringer,  the  licensee  may,  to  prevent  an  absolute  failure  of  justice,  sue 
him  in  equity  in  his  own  name.58 

8.  PERSONS  LIABLE  AND  PARTIES  DEFENDANT59  —  a.  In  Actions  at  Law.  The 
general  principle  of  law  is  that  all  who  participate  in  the  infringement  of  a 
patent  are  liable  in  an  action  at  law  for  damages  which  may  have  been  sustained 
by  the  patentee  by  reason  thereof.60  If  one  joint  owner  of  a  patent  for  a  machine 
uses  or  sells  such  patentee's  machine  without  the  authority  of  his  coowner  as 
respects  the  right  of  the  latter,  he  is  liable  to  an  action  at  law  by  such  coowner 
for  an  infringement  of  the  patent.61  The  rule  is,  both  on  principle  and  authority, 
that  servants  and  agents  who  make  use  of  or  sell  for  another  a  patented  article 
are  liable  in  an  action  at  law  to  the  patentee  for  damages  sustained  by  him.62  A 


17   Fed.  Cas.  No.    10,109,   4   Ban.   &  A.   203, 
16  Blatchf.  139,  16  Off.  Gaz.  761. 

54.  Waterman  v.  Mackenzie,  138  U.  S.  252, 
11    S.    Ct.    334,    34    L.    ed.    923;    Birdsell    v. 
Shaliol,  112  U.  S.  485,  5  S.  Ct.  244,  28  L.  ed. 
768;  Paper  Bag  Mach.  Cases,  105  U.  S.  766, 
26  L.  ed.  959  T  Littlefield  v.  Perry,  21  Wall. 
(U.  S.)   205,  22  L.  ed.  577;  Gayler  v.  Wilder, 
10  How.    (U.  S.)    477,   13  L.  ed.  504;  Wool- 
worth   v.   Wilson,    4    How.    (U.    S.)    712,    11 
L.   ed.    1171;    Daimler   Mfg.   Co.   v.   Conklin, 
145  Fed.  955;  New  York  Continental  Jewell 
Filtration    Co.    v.    Sullivan,    111    Fed.    179; 
Sharpies  v.  Moseley,   etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  75  Fed. 
595 ;  Dorsey  Revolving  Harvester  Rake  Co.  v. 
Bradley  Mfg.  Co.,   7   Fed.   Cas.  No.  4,015,   1 
Ban.   &   A.   330,    12   Blatchf.   202;    Goodyear 
v.    McBurney,    10    Fed.    Cas.    No.    5,574,    3 
Blatchf.  32;  Nelson  v.  McMann,  17  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,109,  4  Ban.  &  A.  203,  16  Blatchf.  139, 
16  Off.  Gaz.  761. 

When  suit  by  patentee  alone  improper. — 
The  owner  of  a  patent  who  has  granted  an 
exclusive  license  thereunder  for  certain  ter- 
ritory cannot,  suing  alone,  recover  profits 
made  by  an  infringer  which,  but  for  the  in- 
fringement, would  have  inured  to  the  sole 
benefit  of  the  licensee.  Bredin  v.  Solmson, 
145  Fed.  944. 

55.  Excelsior  Wooden  Pipe  Co.  v.  Seattle, 
117    Fed.    140,    55    C.    C.    A.    156;    Excelsior 
Wooden-Pipe  Co.  v.  Allen,   104  Fed.  553,  44 
C.  C.  A.  30;  Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  California 
Electric  Light  Co.,  52  Fed.  945,  3  C.  C.  A. 
368;  Brush  Electric  Co.  v.  Electric  Imp.  Co., 
49   Fed.   73;    Brush-Swan  Electric  Light  Co. 
v.    Thomson-Houston    Electric    Co.,    48    Fed. 
224. 

Licensee  and  patentee  necessary  parties. — 
Where  an  exclusive  license  has  been  granted, 
the  licensee  and  the  patentee  are  both  neces- 
sary parties  to  an  infringement  suit.  Bowers 
Hydraulic  Dredging  Co.  V.  Vare,  112  Fed. 
63;  Hammond  v.  Hunt,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,003,  4  Ban.  &  A.  111. 

56.  Blair  v.  Lippincott  Glass  Co.,  52  Fed. 
226. 


57.  Gayler    v.    Wilder,    10    How.    (U.    S.) 
477,  13  L.  ed.  504;  Shepherd  v.  Deitsch,  138 
Fed.   83    [reversed  on  other  grounds  in   146 
Fed.  756,  77  C.  C.  A.  246] ;  Peters  v.  Union 
Biscuit    Co.,    120    Fed.    672;    Union    Switch, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Johnson  R.   Signal  Co.,  52  Fed. 
867    {reversed  on  other  grounds   in  55   Fed. 
487,  5  C.  C.  A.  204] ;  Nellis  v.  Pennock  Mfg. 
Co.,    13    Fed.    451;    Aultman    v.    Holley,    2 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  656,   11   Blatchf.  317,  6  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  534,  5  Off.  Gaz.  3;  Potter  v.  Wil- 
son,   19   Fed.   Cas.   No.    11,342,   2   Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  102. 

58.  Waterman  v.  Mackenzie,  138  U.  S.  252, 
11   S.   Ct.   334,   34  L.  ed.  923;   Littlefield  v. 
Perry,  21  Wall.    (U.  S.)   205,  22  L.  ed.  577; 
Smith  v.  Ridgely,  103  Fed.  875,  43  C.  C.  A. 
365;   Waterman  v.  Shipman,  55   Fed.  982,  5 
C.  C.  A.  371;   Adriance  v.  McCormick  Har- 
vesting Mach.  Co.,  55  Fed.  288   [affirmed  in 
56  Fed.  918,  6  C.  C.  A.  168]. 

59.  See,  generally,  PARTIES. 
Liability  of  counties  see  11  Cyc.  497. 
Liability  of  municipal  corporations  see  28 

Cyc.  49. 

60.  Graham  v.  Earl,  82  Fed.  737;  Cramer 
v.    Fry,    68    Fed.    201;    National    Car-Brake 
Shoe   Co.  v.  Terre  Haute   Car,  etc.,   Co.,    19 
Fed.    514.      See   also   York,    etc.,   R.    Co.    r. 
Winans,   17  How.    (U.  S.)    30,   15  L.  ed.  27. 
But  see  United  Nickel   Co.  v.  Worthington, 
13    Fed.    392,    where    the    court    laid    down 
the  doctrine  that  only  those  persons  can  be 
held  to  damages  who  own  or  have  some  in- 
terest in  the  business  of  making,  using,  or 
selling  the  thing  which  is  an  infringement; 
such  doctrine,  however,  being  disapproved  in 
Graham  v.  Earl,  supra. 

The  fact  that  a  postmaster  who  infringed 
a  patent  turned  the  moneys  saved  by  its  use 
over  to  the  government  does  not  affect  his 
personal  liability  to  such  patentee  for  such 
infringement.  Campbell  v.  James,  2  Fed. 
338.  18  Blatchf.  92. 

61.  Pitts  v.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,193, 
3  Blatchf.  201. 

62.  Cramer  v.  Fray,  68  Fed.  201 ;  Bryce  v. 

[XIII,  C,  8,  a] 


1002     [30  Cyc.J 


PATENTS 


mere  purchaser  of  infringing  articles  is  not  liable  in  an  action  at  law  as  an 
infringer.63  Whenever  an  agent  of  a  corporation  proceeding  within  the  general 
scope  of  his  powers  and  of  the  powers  delegated  to  it  by  him  infringes  a  patent, 
the  corporation  is  liable  to  the  patentee  in  an  action  at  law  for  damages.64  So 
too  where  a  private  corporation,  as  a  principal,  cooperates  with  another  corpora- 
tion in  the  infringement  of  a  patent,  it  is  directly  responsible  to  the  patentee  in 
an  action  at  law  for  the  resulting  damage.65  As  to  whether  an  action  at  law  may 
be  maintained  by  a  patentee  against  officers  of  a  corporation  which  infringes  his 
patent,  there  is  a  conflict  of  authority ;  some  cases  holding  that  such  an  action  is 
not  maintainable,  even  where  such  officers  personally  conducted  the  business 
which  constituted  the  infringement,66  while  other  cases  hold  that  such  officers, 
whenever  they  actually  participate  in  the  infringement,  are  liable.67 

b.  In  Suits  in  Equity68  —  (i)  PERSONS  LIABLE — (A)  Private  Corporations 
and  Their  Officers.  A  private  corporation  is  liable  in  a  suit  in  equity  to  recover 
profits  resulting  from  the  infringement  of  a  patent  by  one  of  its  agents  while  pro- 
ceeding within  the  scope  of  its  powers.69  A  suit  for  an  accounting  cannot  be 
maintained  against  an  individual  who  is  not  alleged  to  have  infringed  the  patent 
except  in  his  official  capacity  as  an  officer  of  the  corporation  charged  to  have  com- 
mitted the  infringement  where  it  is  not  shown  that  the  corporation  is  insolvent,70 
or  that  there  is  any  other  obstacle  in  the  way  of  obtaining  full  relief  against  the 
corporation.71  But  one  who  in  his  capacity  as  officer  of  a  private  corporation 
actively  participates  in  an  infringement  of  a  patent  by  it  will  be  restrained  by 
injunction.72 

(B)  Officers  of  United  States.  An  officer  of  the  United  States  is  personally 
liable  to  be  sued  at  law  for  his  own  infringement  of  a  patent,  notwithstanding  all 
of  his  acts  in  relation  thereto  were  performed  under  orders  of  the  government ; 
but  a  suit  in  equity  will  not  lie  as  no  injunction  can  be  granted.78 


Dorr,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,070,  3  McLean  582, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  302.  See  also  Morse  v. 
Davis,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,855,  5  Blatchf. 
40. 

63.  Blanchard's    Gun-Stock    Turning    Fac- 
tory   v.    Jacobs,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No.    1,520,    2 
Blatchf.  69,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.   158. 

64.  Poppenhusen     v.     New     York     Gutta 
Percha   Comb  Co.,   19   Fed.   Cas.  No.   11,283, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  62.     See  also  York,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  v.  Winans,  17  How.  (U.  S.)  30,  15  L.  ed. 
27. 

65.  York,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Winans,  17  How. 
(U.  S.)   30,  15  L.  ed.  27. 

66.  United  Nickel  Co.  v.  Worthington,  13 
Fed.  392. 

Unless  he  has  acted  beyond  the  scope  of 
his  powers  infringement  by  a  corporation 
causes  no  right  of  action  at  law  for  damages 
against  one  of  its  officers  individually. 
Cazier  v.  Mackie-Lovejoy  Mfg.  Co.,  138  Fed. 
654,  71  C.  C.  A.  104. 

67.  National  Car-Brake  Shoe  Co.  v.  Terre 
Haute  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Fed.  514.     See  also 
Cahoone    Barnet    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Rubber,    etc., 
Harness  Co.,  45  Fed.  582. 

68.  Liability  of  counties  see  11  Cyc.  497. 
Liability  of  municipal  corporations  see  28 

Cyc.  49. 

69.  Elizabeth  <c.  American  Nicholson  Pave- 
ment Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000. 

70.  Glucose    Sugar    Refining    Co.    v.    St. 
Louis  Syrup,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Fed.  540;  Hutter 
v.  De  Q.  Bottle  Stopper  Co.,   128   Fed.  283, 
62  C.  C.  A.  652 ;  Greene  v.  Buckley,  120  Fed. 

[XIII,  C,  8,  a] 


955  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  135  Fed. 
520,  68  C.  C.  A.  70] ;  Loomis-Manning  Filter 
Co.  v.  Manhattan  Filter  Co.,  117  Fed.  325 
[affirmed  in  128  Fed.  1023] ;  Bowers  v.  At- 
lantic, etc.,  Co.,  104  Fed.  887;  Mergenthaler 
Linotype  Co.  v.  Ridder,  05  Fed.  853 ;  Howard 
v.  St.  Paul  Plow- Works,  35  Fed.  743. 

71.  Loomis-Manning    Filter    Co.    v.    Man- 
hattan Filter  Co.,  117  Fed.  325   [affirmed  in 
128  Fed.   1023];   Mergenthaler  Linotype  Co. 
V.  Ridder,  65  Fed.  85*3. 

72.  Cahoone    Barnet   Mfg.    Co.   t/.    Rubber, 
etc.,  Harness   Co.,   45   Fed.   582;    Iowa  Barb 
Steel-Wire  Co.  v.  Southern  Barbed- Wire  Co., 
30   Fed.    123;    American    Cotton-Tie    Supply 
Co.    v.   McCready,    1    Fed.    Cas.    No.    295,    4 
Ban.  &  A.  588,   17  Blatchf.  291,  8  Reporter 
811,   17   Off.   Gaz.  565;   Goodyear  v.  Phelps, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,581,  3  Blatchf.  91;  Pop- 
penhusen v.  Falke,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,279, 
4  Blatchf.  493,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  181.     Officers 
of  non-resident  corporation,  made  defendants 
and   served   with   process   in   a   suit   for   in- 
fringement of  a  patent  while  acting  for  the 
corporation,    may    be    restrained    from    such 
infringement,    although    the    corporation    is 
not  a  party,  and  is  not  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the*  court     Edison  Electric  Light  Co. 
v.  Packard  Electric  Co.,  61  Fed.  1002. 

73.  Belknap   v.    Schild,    161    U.    S.    10,    16 
S.  Ct.  443,  40  L.  ed.  599 ;  International  Postal 
Supply  Co.  V.  Bruce,  114  Fed.  509   [affirmed 
in  132  Fed.  1006,  65  C.  C.  A.   130    (affirmed 
in   194  U.   S.   601,  24  S.  Ct.   820,  48  L.   ed. 
1134)];  Head  v.  Porter,  48  Fed.  481;   Fore- 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1003 


(c)  Joint  Owner  of  Patent.  A  joint  owner  of  a  patent  who  uses  an  infringing 
device  is  liable  in  equity  to  his  coowner  for  the  wrong  done.74 

(D)  Agents ^  and  Servants.     One  who  as  agent  for  another  person  sells  an 
article  which  is  an  infringement  of  a  patent  may  be  restrained  by  injunction,75 
even  where  he  had  no  pecuniary  interest  in  the  sale;76  but  such  an  agent  is  not 
liable  to  be  compelled  to  account  to  the  patentee  for  the  profits  of  the  sale  of  the 
infringing  article,77  unless  it  appears  thac  he  was  pecuniarily  interested  in  the  sale.78 
And  the  use  by  one  as  the  agent  of  another  person  of  a  patented  device  does  not 
render  him  liable  to  account  for  infringement  of  the  patent.79 

(E)  Joint  and  Several  Liability.    All  persons  participating  in  the  infringement 
of  a  patent  are  jointly80  or  severally81  liable  on  a  bill  for  such  an  infringement. 

(u)  PARTIES — (A)  In  General.  Officers  of  a.private  corporation  are  neither 
necessary  nor  proper  parties  defendant  in  a  suit  in  equity  against  the  corporation 
for  the  infringement  of  a  patent,  where  they  perform  no  act  of  infringement,83 
and  were  not  pecuniarily  interested  therein;8*  but  such  officers,  where  they  have 
personally  infringed  and  are  joint  tort-feasors,  may  be  made  condefendantsVith  a 
corporation,84  and  may  also,  for  injunctive  purposes,  be  made  co-defendants,  where 
they  have,  in  their  capacity  as  officers  of  a  corporation,  actively  participated  in  an 
infringement.85  The  owner  of  infringing  machines  and  a  lessee  from  him  may 


hand  v.  Porter,  15  Fed.  256.    But  see  James 
v.  Campbell,  104  U.  S.  356,  26  L.  ed.  786. 

74.  Herring   v.   Gas    Consumers'   Assoc.,   9 
Fed.  556,  3  McCrary  206. 

75.  Featherstone  v.  Ormonde  Cycle  Co.,  53 
Fed.    110;    Steiger    v.    Heidelberger,    4    Fed. 
455,   18  Blatchf.  426;   Buck  v.  Cobb,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,079,  Brunn.  Col.  Cas.  550;  Good- 
year  v.   Phelps,    10    Fed.    Cas.   No.    5,581,    3 
Blatchf.   91;    Maltby  v.   Bobo,    16   Fed.   Cas. 
No.  8,998,  2  Ban.  &  A.  459,  14  Blatchf.  53. 

76.  Featherstone  v.  Ormonde  Cycle  Co.,  53 
Fed.  110;  Maltby  v.  Bobo,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,998,  2  Ban.  &  A.  459,  14  Blatchf.  53. 

77.  Featherstone  v.  Ormonde  Cycle  Co.,  53 
Fed.    110.     See   also   Young  v.   Foerster,   37 
Fed.  203. 

78.  Steiger  v.  Heidelberger,  4  Fed.  455,  18 
Blatchf.  426. 

79.  Emigh  v.  Chamberlain,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,447,  1  Biss.  367,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  192.     A 
workman,   however,   who   uses   an   infringing 
article,  his  own  property,  is  liable  to  be  com- 
pelled to  account  to  the  patentee.     Wooster 
V.  Marks,   30   Fed.   Cas.  No.    18,038,   5   Ban. 
&  A.  56,  17  Blatchf.  368,  9  Reporter  201. 

80.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  Albright,  32 
Fed.  287;   Jennings  v.  Dolan,  29  Fed.  861. 

Applications  of  rule. — Where  one  defendant 
operates  a  planing  machine  and  two  others 
owned  it,  an  injunction  should  properly  is- 
sue against  the  three.  Woodworth  v.  Ed- 
wards, 30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,014,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  610,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  120.  Where  one 
who  has  contracted  to  erect  a  building  lets 
a  portion  of  the  work  to  a  subcontractor, 
and  in  the  prosecution  of  their  respective 
parts  each  infringes  the  patent  rights  of 
another,  both  are  liable  as  joint  inf ringers. 
Jackson  v.  Nagle,  47  Fed.  703. 

Where  there  is  a  privity  of  connection  be- 
tween the  different  defendants  with  reference 
to  the  subject-matter  of  the  action,  they  are 
jointly  liable  on  a  bill  for  infringing  a  pat- 
ent. Wells  v.  Jacques,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,398,  1  Ban.  &  A.  60,  5  Off.  Gaz.  364. 


Although  when  it  comes  to  an  accounting, 
complainant  must  prove  that  a  given  defend- 
ant is  liable  to  him  in  profits  or  damages, 
under  risk  of  which  the  court  may  possibly 
order  concerning  costs,  yet  an  injunction 
should  go  against  all  of  the  defendants  par- 
ticipating in  the  infringement.  Standard 
Paint  Co.  #.  Bird,  65  Fed.  509  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  68  Fed.  483,  15  C.  C.  A. 
516];  Starrett  v.  Athol  Mach.  Co.,  14  Fed. 
910. 

Defendants  held  not  jointly  liable.— Con- 
tractors laid  a  pavement  for  a  city  which 
infringed  the  patent  of  one  A,  and  the  city 
paid  them  as  much  therefor  as  it  would  have 
paifl  to  A  had  he  done  the  work,  thus  realiz- 
ing no  profits  from  the  infringement.  It 
was  held  that  in  a  suit  in  equity  to  recover 
profits  against  the  city  and  the  contractors, 
notwithstanding  the  latter  answered  jointly, 
the  latter  alone  were  responsible,  although 
the  former  might  have  been  enjoined  before 
the  completion  of  the  work  and  would  un- 
doubtedly have  been  liable  in  an  action  for 
damages.  Elizabeth  17.  American  Nicholson 
Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000. 

81.  Jennings  v.  Dolan,  29  Fed.  861. 

82.  Hutter  v.  De  Q.  Bottle  Stopper  Co.,  128 
Fed.  283,  62  C.  C.  A.  652. 

83.  Matthews,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.   v.    Trenton 
Lamp  Co.,  73  Fed.  212. 

84.  Whiting  Safety  Catch  Co.  v.  Western 
Wheeled    Scraper    Co.,    148    Fed.    396;    Iowa 
Barb  Steel- Wire  Co.  V.  Southern  Barbed-Wire 
Co.,  30  Fed.  123. 

On  a  complaint  alleging  that  a  corporation 
and  its  president  have  infringed  plaintiff's 
patent,  the  joining  of  the  president  as  co- 
defendant  with  the  corporation  is  proper, 
although  there  is  no  specific  allegation  that 
he  directed  or  participated  in  the  infringe- 
ment complained  of.  Cleveland  Forge,  etc., 
Co.  v.  U.  S.  Rolling-Stock  Co.,  41  Fed. 
476. 

85.  Nichols   v.    Pearce,    18    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
10,246,  7  Blatchf.  5. 

[XIII,  C,  8,  b,  (II),  (A)] 


1004     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


be  joined  as  defendants  in  a  suit  for  infringement.86  And  a  corporation  and  an 
individual  may  be  joined  as  defendants  in  a  suit  for  infringement  of  a  patent, 
where  it  is  alleged  that  the  individual  defendant  owns  practically  all  the  stock  of 
the  corporation  and  personally  directs  its  affairs,  and  that  they  conspired  together 
to  commit  the  acts  of  infringement.87  A  party  alleged  to  be  encouraging  the  manu- 
facture and  sale  by  the  other  defendants  of  the  infringing  device  and  who  was 
closely  connected  with  the  transactions  complained  of  is  a  proper  party  to  the  bill.88 

(B)  Receivers  of  Private  Corporation.  A  private  corporation  and  its  receiver 
may  be  joined  as  defendants  in  a  bill  for  the  infringement  of  a  patent.89 

(c)  Agents  and  Servants.  One  who  is  pecuniarily  interested  in  the  manufac- 
ture of  an  infringing  article  and  acts  as  agent  for  its  sale  may  be  joined  with  the 
manufacturer  as  a  defendant  in  a  suit  for  the  infringement.90 

e.  Addition  OP  Substitution  of  Parties.  The  ordinary  rules  apply  as  to  the 
addition  or  substitution  of  parties.91 

9.  JOINDER  OF  CAUSES  OF  ACTION.  A  single  suit  may  be  brought  for  the  infringe- 
ment of  several  patents  where  the  inventions  covered  by  those  patents  are  embodied 
in  one  infringing  process,  machine,  manufacture,  or  composition  of  matter.92  In 
the  absence  of  such  conjoint  use,  a  single  suit  cannot  be  maintained.93 


86.  Wells    v.    Jacques,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
17,398,  1  Ban.  &  A.  60,  5  Off.  Gaz.  364. 

87.  Whiting  Safety  Catch  Co.  v.  Western 
Wheeled  Scraper  Co.,  148  Fed.  396. 

88.  Simplex  Electric  Heating  Co.  v.  Leon- 
ard, 147  Fed.  744,  148  Fed.  1023. 

89.  Union  Switch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Philadelphia, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  833. 

90.  Lattimore  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Jones,  133  Fed. 
550   [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  138  Fed. 
62,  70  C.  C.  A.  558]. 

91.  See  cases  cited  infra,  this  note. 
Survivor. —  Upon    the    death    of    defendant 

cause  of  action  survives  against  estate  and 
the  suit  may  be  revived.  Griswold  v.  Hilton, 
87  Fed.  256;  Head  v.  Porter,  70  Fed.  498; 
Hohorst  v.  Howard,  37  Fed.  97;  Kirk  v. 
Du  Bois,  28  Fed.  460;  Smith  v.  Baker1,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,010,  1  Ban.  &  A.  117,  5 
Off.  Gaz.  496,  10  Phila.  (Pa.)  221.  Contra, 
Draper  v.  Hudson,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,069,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  327,  Holmes  208,  3  Off.  Gaz. 
354. 

Suit  against  administrator  survives  after 
finding  of  infringement  and  reference  to 
master.  Atterbury  v.  Gill,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
638,  3  Ban.  &  A.  174,  2  Flipp.  239,  13  Off. 
Gaz.  276. 

Substitution  or  joinder  of  assignee. — As- 
signee after  suit  may  be  substituted  by  orig- 
inal bill  in  the  nature  of  a  supplemental 
bill  (Leadam  v.  Ringgold,  140  Fed.  611; 
Ross  v.  Ft.  Wayne,  63  Fed.  466,  11  C.  C.  A. 
288);  but  assignee  after  suit  not  joined 
where  no  right  to  past  damages  (New  York 
Belting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  New  Jersey  Car-Spring, 
etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed.  504). 

The  owner  of  an  equitable  right  or  interest 
in  a  patent  may  be  added  as  complainant 
upon  request.  Patterson  v.  Stapler,  7  Fed. 
210. 

Intervention. —  The  general  rules  as  to  in- 
tervention of  parties  apply.  Ring  Refrig- 
erator, etc.,  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Ice  Mfg.,  etc., 
Co.,  67  Fed.  535;  Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  South- 
ern Pac.  Co.,  54  Fed.  521,  4  C.  C.  A.  491; 
Thomas-Huston  Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry  Elec- 

[XIII,  C,  8,  b,  (n),  (A)] 


trie  Co.,  46  Fed.  75;   Curran  v.  St.  Charles 
Car  Co.,  32  Fed.  835. 

Addition  of  defendant  by  supplemental  bill 
see  Parkhurst  v.  Kinsman,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,758,  2  Blatchf.  72,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  175, 
8  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  73. 

92.  Kansas   City  Hay-Press   Co.   v.   Devol, 
81  Fed.  726,  26  C.  C.  A.  578;  Huber  v.  Myers 
Sanitary    Depot,    34    Fed.    752;    Deering    v. 
Winona  Harvester  Works,  24  Fed.  90;   Case 
v.  Redfield,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,494,  4  McLean 
526,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  741 ;  Gillespie  v.  Cum- 
mings,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,434,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
587,  3  Sawy.  259;  Nourse  v.  Allen,  18  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,367,  4  Blatchf.  376,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  63;   Richardson  v.  Noyes,   20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   11,792,  2  Ban.  &  A.   398,   10  Off.  Gaz. 
507. 

Where  conjoint  use  is  alleged,  the  bill  is 
not  multifarious.  Edison  Phonograph  Co.  v. 
Victor  Talking  Mach.  Co.,  120  Fed.  305; 
Continental  Gin  Co.  v.  F.  H.  Lummus  Sons' 
Co.,  110  Fed.  390;  Elliott,  etc.,  Book-Type- 
writer Co.  v.  Fisher  Typewriter  Co.,  109  Fed. 
330. 

Allegation  that  the  inventions  are  used  in 
one  machine  is  a  sufficient  allegation  of  con- 
joint use.  Herman  Patent  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Brooklyn  City  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,703, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  86,  15  Blatchf.  444,  7  Reporter 
295. 

Proof  of  the  conjoint  use  of  several  in- 
ventions but  not  all  will  sustain  the  suit. 
Chisholm  v.  Johnson,  106  Fed.  191;  Kansas 
City  Hay-Press  Co.  v.  Devol,  81  Fed.  726,  26 
C.  C.  A.  578. 

Validity  of  patents  and  damages  are  de- 
termined separately  for  each.  Consolidated 
Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Brush-Swan  Electric 
Light  Co.,  20  Fed.  502. 

In  England,  where  suit  is  brought  on  nu- 
merous patents,  plaintiff  may  be  required  to 
limit  the  number.  Saccharin  Corp.  r.  Wild, 
[1903]  1  Ch.  410,  72  L.  J.  Ch.  272,  88  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  101 ;  Saccharin  Corp.  v.  White,  88 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  850. 

93.  Louden   Mach.    Co.   v.   Ward,   96   Fed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1005 


10.  SUIT  ON  SEPARATE  CLAIMS  OF  ONE  PATENT.     Suit  may  be  maintained  upon 
some  of  the  claims  of  a  patent  and  not  others,94  and  it  is  not  defeated  by  the 
invalidity  of  the  others.95 

11.  INJUNCTIONS96  —  a.  In  General.     Injunctions  are  granted  to  preserve  prop- 
erty rights  in  patents  upon  the  same  principle  that  they  are  granted  to  preserve 
other  property  rights  and  the  same  general  rules  control.97 


232;  Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Ohio  Match 
Co.,  80  Fed.  117;  Rose  v.  Hirsh,  77  Fed.  469, 
23  C.  C.  A.  246  [affirming  71  Fed.  881]; 
Union  Switch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  68  Fed.  913;  Griffith  v.  Segar,  29 
Fed.  707 ;  Shickle  v.  South  St.  Louis  Foundry 
Co.,  22  Fed.  105;  Consolidated  Electric  Light 
Co.  v.  Brush-Swan  Electric  Light  Co.,  20 
Fed.  502;  Lilliendahl  v.  Detwiller,  18  Fed. 
176;  Barney  v.  Peck,  16  Fed.  413;  Nellis  v. 
Pennock  Mfg.  Co.,  13  Fed.  451;  Hayes  v. 
Dayton,  8  Fed.  702,  18  Blatchf.  420. 

94.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   4922    [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.    ( 1901 )   p.  3396]  ;  Gordon  v.  War- 
der,   150  U.   S.  47,   14   S.   Ct.   32,   37  L.  ed. 
992;   Russell  v.  Winchester  Repeating  Arms, 
97  Fed.  634;  Blake  v.  Smith,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,502;  Cook  v.  Ernest',  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,155, 

5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   396,   1   Woods   195,  2  Off. 
Gaz.    89;    McComb   v.    Brodie,    15    Fed.    Cas. 
No.   8,708,   5   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   384,   1   Woods 
153,   2    Off.    Gaz.    117;    Moody   v.    Fiske,    17 
Fed.   Cas.  No.   9,745,   2  Mason    112,    1   Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  312;  Wyeth  v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  18,107.  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  23,  1  Story  273. 

95.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §§   4917,  4922 
[U.    S.   Comp.    St.    (1901)    pp.    3393,   3396]; 
Whitney  v.  Boston  R.   Co.,   50  Fed.   72    [re- 
versed  on   other   grounds    in   53    Fed.    913] ; 
Burdett  v.   Estey,   4   Fed.   Cas.   No.   2,145,   4 
Ban.   &  A.   7,    15   Blatchf.  349,   15  Off.  Gaz. 
877.     See  also  supra,  IX. 

96.  See,   generally,   INJUNCTIONS,   22    Cyc. 
724. 

97.  Westinghouse    Air-Brake    Co.    v.    Car- 
penter, 32  Fed.  484;  Keyes  v.  Pueblo  Smelt- 
ing, etc.,  Co.,  31   Fed.  560;   Brick  v.  Staten 
Island    R.    Co.,    25    Fed.    553;     Merriam    v. 
Smith,  11  Fed.  588;  American  Cotton-Tie  Co. 
v.   McCready,    1    Fed.    Cas.   No.   295,   4   Ban. 

6  A.  588,   17  Blatchf.  291,   8  Reporter  811, 
17    Off.    Gaz.    565;    Cook   v.   Ernest,    6    Fed. 
Cas.    No.    3,155,    5    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    396,    1 
Woods  195,  2  Off.  Gaz.  89;  Sargent  v.  Lamed, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,364,  2  Curt.  340. 

Even  where  a  license  contract  is  alleged  an 
injunction  may  be  granted. —  Busch  v.  Jones, 
184  U.  S.  598,  22  S.  Ct.  511,  46  L.  ed.  707; 
Hat-Sweat  Mfg.  Co.  r.  Porter,  34  Fed.  745; 
Brown  v.  Lapham,  27  Fed.  77,  23  Blatchf. 
475. 

Gambling  device. —  Injunction  will  not  be 
granted  on  patent  covering  gambling  device. 
Reliance  Novelty  Co.  v.  Dworzek,  80  Fed. 
902. 

Use  in  public  contract. — An  infringer  may 
be  enjoined,  although  the  device  was  used 
in  a  public  contract  which  the  patentee 
could  not  get.  Colgate  v.  International 
Ocean  Tel.  Co.,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,993,  4  Ban. 
&  A.  609,  17  Blatchf.  308,  9  Reporter  166, 
17  Off.  Gaz.  194. 


Use  for  government.— No  injunction 
against  government  officer  using  invention 
for  government.  International  Postal  Sup- 
ply Co.  v.  Bruce,  114  Fed.  509  [affirmed  in 
132  Fed.  1006,  65  C.  C.  A.  130  (affirmed  in 
194  U.  S.  '601,  24  S.  Ct.  820,  48  L.  ed. 
1134)]. 

A  contributory  infringer  may  be  enjoined. 
Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Ohio  Brass 
Co.,  80  Fed.  712,  26  C.  C.  A.  107. 

A  mere  user  may  be  enjoined  (Busch  v. 
Jones,  16  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  23;  Bresnahan 
v.  Tripp  Giant  Leveller  Co.,  72  Fed.  920,  19 
C.  C.  A.  237 ;  Thompson  v.  American  Bank- 
Note  Co.,  35  Fed.  203;  Tucker  v.  Burditt,  24 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,216,  4  Ban.  &  A.  569),  but 
only  in  a  clear  case  (Jefferson  Electric  Light, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co., 
134  Fed.  392,  67  C.  C.  A.  189;  Westing- 
house  Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Burton  Stock-Car 
Co.,  70  Fed.  619;  Howe  v.  Newton,  12  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,771,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  531;  Mor- 
ris v.  Lowell  Mfg.  Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,833,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  67). 

Although  the  patentee  has  never  used  the 
invention  himself  an  injunction  may  be 

f  ranted.  Crown  Cork,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Aluminum 
topper  Co.,  108  Fed.  845,  48  C.  C.  A.  72; 
Campbell  Printing-Press  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Man- 
hattan R.  Co.,  49  Fed.  930;  American  Bell 
Tel.  Co.  v.  Cushman  Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  36  Fed. 
488,  1  L.  R.  A.  799. 

Actual  infringement  is  not  necessary  to 
warrant  an  injunction. — An  injunction  may 
be  granted  if  an  intent  to  infringe  is  es- 
tablished. Westinghouse  Mach.  Co.  v.  Press 
Pub.  Co.,  127  Fed.  822  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  135  Fed.  767,  68  C.  C.  A.  469]; 
National  Meter  Co.  v.  Thomson  Meter  Co., 
106  Fed.  531;  Brill  v.  St.  Louis  Car  Co.,  80 
Fed.  909;  Johnson  R.  Signal  Co.  v.  Union 
Switch,  etc.,  Co.,  55  Fed.  487,  5  C.  C.  A.  204 ; 
Sessions  v.  Gould,  49  Fed.  855  [affirmed  in 
63  Fed.  1001,  11  C.  C.  A.  546];  Butz  Thermo- 
Electric  Regulator  Co.  v.  Jacobs  Electric  Co., 
36  Fed.  191;  Poppenhusen  v.  New  York 
Gutta  Percha  Comb  Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,281,  4  Blatchf.  184,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  74; 
Woodworth  v.  Stone,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,021, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  296,  3  Story  749;  Frearson 
v.  Loe,  9  Ch.  D.  48,  27  Wkly.  Rep.  183. 

Restraining  complainant  from  bringing 
further  suits. —  In  a  suit  for  infringement  of 
a  patent,  a  court  of  equity  has  the  power 
upon  petition  of  defendant  to  restrain  com- 
plainant from  bringing  further  suits  against 
the  purchasers  or  users  of  the  patented  arti- 
cle, and  will  do  so  when  it  appears  that  the 
suits  are  vexatious  and  oppressive.  National 
Cash-Register  Co.  v.  Boston  Cash  Indicator, 
etc.,  Co.,  41  Fed.  51 ;  Ide  v.  Ball  Engine  Co., 
31  Fed.  901;  Allis  v.  Stowell,  16  Fed.  783; 

[XIII,  C,  11,  a] 


1006     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


b.  Preliminary  Injunction  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  A  preliminary  injunction  is 
granted  only  in  the  discretion  of  the  court98  to  prevent  irreparable  injury,"  and 
the  right  to  and  necessity  for  the  injunction  must  be  clearly  shown.1  The  court 
will  not  attempt  to  decide  doubtful  questions  on  motion  for  a  preliminary  injunc- 
tion.2 In  case  of  doubt  sucli  injunction  will  not  be  granted,3  especially  where 


Motte  v.  Bennett,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,884,  2 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  642. 

Where  plaintiff  is  guilty  of  deception  in- 
junction will  be  refused.  Ironclad  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Sugar  Loaf  Dairy  Co.,  140  Fed.  108. 

98.  American   Nicholson   Pavement   Co.   v. 
Elizabeth,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  312,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  189,  18  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.   (Pa.)   85;  Earth 
Closet  Co.  v.  Fenner,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,249,  5 
Fish.  Pat.   Cas.   15;   Irwin  v.  Dane,   13  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,081,  2  Biss.  442,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
359;    Potter   v.   Whitney,    19    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
11,341,   3   Fish.   Pat.  Cas.   77,   1   Lowell  87; 
Union    Paper-Bag   Mach.    Co.    v.    Binney,    24 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,387,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  166. 

The  court  has  no  discretion  even  after  de- 
cision on  appeal  holding  that  the  patent  is 
valid  and  infringed.  In  re  Chicago  Sugar 
Refining  Co.,  87  Fed.  750,  31  C.  C.  A.  221. 

Even  after  hearing  on  the  merits  a  tem- 
porary injunction  may  be  granted.  Cimiotti 
Unhairing  Co.  v.  American  Fur  Refining  Co., 
117  Fed.  623. 

Notice. —  May  be  granted  without  notice. 
Yuengling  v.  Johnson,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,195,  3  Ban.  &  A.  99,  1  Hughes  607. 

99.  Irreparable    injury    is    the    foundation 
for  motion  for  injunction.     Bowers  Dredging 
Co.  v.  New  York  Dredging  Co.,  77  Fed.  980; 
Columbia  Wire  Co.  v.  Freeman  Wire  Co.,  71 
Fed.    302;    Norton  v.   Eagle  Automatic   Can 
Co.,   57   Fed.   929;    New   York   Grape   Sugar 
Co.   v.  American  Grape   Sugar   Co.,    10   Fed. 
835,  20  Blatchf.  386;   Batten  v.  Silliman,  2 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,106,  3  Wall.  Jr.  124;  Dorsey 
Revolving    Harvester    Rake    Co.    v.    Bradley 
Mfg.  Co.,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,015,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
330,  12  Blatchf.  202;  Morris  v.  Lowell  Mfg. 
Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,833,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
67;    North    v.    Kershaw,    18    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
10,311,   4   Blatchf.   70;    Parker   v.   Sears,    18 
Fed.   Cas.  No.   10,748,   1   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93, 
4  Pa.  L.  J.  443. 

1.  International  Tooth-Crown  Co.  v.  Mills, 
22  Fed.  659 ;  Cooper  v.  Mattheys,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,200,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  38;  Parker  v.  Sears,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,748,   1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93, 
4  Pa.  L.  J.  443;   Sickels  v.  Youngs,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,838,  3  Blatchf.  293. 

2.  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Exeter 
Co.,  110  Fed.  986;   Sprague  Electric  R.,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  95  Fed.  821, 
37    C.    C.    A.    286;    Welsbach    Light    Co.    v. 
Apollo    Incandescent    Gaslight    Co.,    94    Fed. 
1005. 

3.  Bridson  v.   McAlpine,   8   Beav.   229,   50 
Eng.   Reprint  90;    Bacon  v.  Spottiswoode,    1 
Beav.  382,  3  Jur.  476,  994,  17  Eng.  Ch.  382, 
48   Eng.   Reprint   988,   4  Myl.   &  C.  433,    18 
Eng.  Ch.  433,  41  Eng.  Reprint  167;  Collard 
v.  Allsion,  4  Myl.  &  C.  487,  18  Eng.  Ch.  487, 
41  Eng.  Reprint  188;  Goodwin  v.  Fader,   19 
Can.  L.  T.  Occ.  Notes  364. 

[XIII,  C,  11,  b,  (I)] 


Refused  where  infringement  doubtful  see 
Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Wagner 
Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  130  Fed.  902;  Armat  Mov- 
ing Picture  Co.  v.  Edison  Mfg.  Co.,  125  Fed. 
939,  60  C.  C.  A.  380;  Steams-Roger  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Brown,  114  Fed.  939,  52  C.  C.  A.  559; 
National  Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Munson, 

99  Fed.   86;   National   Folding-Box,  etc.,   Co. 
v.   Brown,  98  Fed.   437;    Blakey  v.  National 
Mfg.  Co.,  95  Fed.  136,  37  C.  C.  A.  27;   Con- 
solidated Fastener  Co.  v.  American  Fastener 
Co.,   94   Fed.   523;    Whippany   Co.   v.  United 
Indurated  Fibre  Co.,  87  Fed.  215,  30  C.  C.  A. 
615;   Menasha  Pulley  Co.  v.  Dodge,   85   Fed. 
971,  29  C.  C.  A.  508,  86  Fed.  904,  30  C.  C.  A. 
455;  Societe  Anonyme,  etc.,  v.  Allen,  84  Fed. 
812;   American  Pneumatic  Tool  Co.  v.  Bige- 
low  Co.,  77  Fed.  988,  23  C.  C.  A.  603;  Union 
Switch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
75    Fed.    1004;    Western   Tel.    Constr.   Co.    v. 
Stromberg,    66    Fed.    550;    George    Ertel    Co. 
I?.  Stahl,  65  Fed.  519,  13  C.  C.  A.  31 ;  Brush 
Electric  Co.  v.  Electric  Storage  Battery  Co., 
64  Fed.  775;  Hammond  Buckle  Co.  v.  Good- 
year   Rubber    Co.,    49    Fed.    274;     Standard 
Paint  Co.  v.  Reynolds,  43  Fed.  304;  American 
Fire   Hose    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Cornelius    Callahan 
Co.,   41    Fed.   50;    Russell  v.   Hyde,   39   Fed. 
614;   Morss  v.  Knapp,  39   Fed.  608;    Thomp- 
son v.  Rand-Avery  Supply  Co.,  38  Fed.  112; 
Steam-Gauge,  etc.,   Co.  v.  St.  Louis  R.   Sup- 
plies Mfg.  Co.,  25   Fed.  491;   Gold,  etc.,  Tel. 
Co.    v.    Commercial    Tel.    Co.,    22    Fed.    838; 
Zinsser   v.    Colledge,    17    Fed.    538;    Allis    v. 
Stowell,    15   Fed.   242;    Hardy  v.  Marble,   10 
Fed.   752;    Cross  v.   Livermore,   9    Fed.   607; 
Steam-Gauge,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Miller,  8  Fed.  314; 
Pullman  v.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,   5    Fed. 
72,  4  Hughes  236 ;  Blake  u.  Boissellier,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  l,493a,  5  Ban.  &  A.  352,  16  Off.  Gaz. 
854;   Dodge  ?;.  Card,  7   Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,951, 
1  Bond  393,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  116;  Goodyear 
v.  New  Jersey  Cent.  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,563,    1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    626,    2    Wall.    Jr. 
356;   Mowry  v.  Grand  St.,  etc.,  Co.,  17  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,893,   10  Blatchf.   89,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  586 ;  Winans  v.  Eaton,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,861,    1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    181;    Woodworth 
v.  Hall,   30  Fed.  Cas.  No.   18,016,   1   Woodb. 
&  M.  248,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  495. 

Validity  and  infringement  must  be  shown 
beyond  doubt.  Brookfield  v.  Elmer  Glass- 
works, 132  Fed.  312;  Welsbach  Light  Co. 
v.  Cosmopolitan  Incandescent  Gaslight  Co., 

100  Fed.  648;    Consolidated  Fastener   Co.  v. 
American  Fastener  Co.,  94  Fed.  523;  Ameri- 
can Nicholson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Elizabeth,   1 
Fed.    Cas.   No.   312,   4    Fish.   Pat.   Cas.    189; 
Parker  v.  Sears,   18  Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,748,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93. 

Cases  in  which  preliminary  injunction  re- 
fused see  National  Phonograph  Co.  v.  Ameri- 
can Graphophone  Co.,  136  Fed.  231;  A.  B. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1007 


defendant  is  financially  responsible.4  It  is  ground  to  deny  a  preliminary  injunc- 
tion that  there  has  been  laches  on  the  part  of  plaintiff ; 5  that  the  alleged  inf  ringer 
has  a  later  patent  under  which  he  is  working ; 6  or  that  the  patent  is  about  to 


Dick  Co.  v.  Roper,  126  Fed.  966;  Westing- 
house  Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Christensen  Engineer- 
ing Co.,  121  Fed.  558;  U.  S.  Gramophone  Co. 
v.  National  Gramophone  Co.,  107  Fed.  129; 
Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Christensen 
Engineering  Co.,  103  Fed.  491;  Western 
Electric  Co.  v.  Anthracite  Tel.  Co.,  100  Fed. 
301;  Vermilya  v.  Erie  R.  Co.,  89  Fed.  96; 
Societe  Anonyme  v.  Allen,  84  Fed.  812; 
Welsbach  Light  Co.  v.  Benedict,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  82  Fed.  747;  SociSte  Fabriques,  etc.  v. 
Franco- American  Trading  Co.,  82  Fed.  439; 
Carter-Crutne  Co.  t?.  Watson,  69  Fed.  267; 
Dickerson  v.  Matheson,  57  Fed.  524,  6  C.  C. 
A.  466;  Johnson  v.  Aldrich,  40  Fed.  675; 
Amazeen  Mach.  Co.  v.  Knight,  39  Fed.  612; 
Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Baltimore,  etc., 
Tel.  Co.,  25  Fed.  30;  Gold,  etc.,  Tel.  Co. 
v.  Pearce,  19  Fed.  419;  Tillinghast  v.  Hicks, 
13  Fed.  388 ;  Steam-Gauge,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Miller, 
11  Fed.  718;  Toohey  v.  Harding,  1  Fed.  174, 

4  Hughes  253 ;  Andrews  v.  Spear,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  380,  3  Ban.  &  A.  82,  4  Dill.  472;  Earth 
Closet  Co.  v.  Fenner,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,249, 

5  Fish.   Pat.    Cas.    15;    Gear   v.    Holmes,    10 
Fed.   Cas.  No.  5,292,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  595; 
Jones  v.  McMurray,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,479,  3 
Ban.  &  A.  130,  2  Hughes  527,  13  Off.  Gaz.  6; 
Jones  v.   Merrill,    13   Fed.   Cas.  No.   7,481,  8 
Off.    Gaz.    401:    North   v.   Kershaw,    18    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,311,  4  Blatchf.  70. 

Cases  in  which  preliminary  injunction 
granted  see  Continental  Wire  Fence  Co.  v, 
Pendergast,  126  Fed.  381;  Stearns-Roger 
Mfg.  Co.  1?.  Brown,  114  Fed.  939,  52  C.  C.  A. 
559;  National  Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Robertson,  99  Fed.  985;  Welsbach  Light  Co. 
v.  Rex  Incandescent  Light  Co.,  94  Fed.  1006; 
Welsbach  Light  Co.  v.  Rex  Incandescent 
Light  Co.,  94  Fed.  1004;  New  York  Filter 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chemical  Bldg.  Co.,  93  Fed.  827; 
Alaska  Packers'  Assoc.  v.  Pacific  Steam 
Whaling  Co.,  93  Fed.  672;  Electric  Car  Co. 
v.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  89  Fed.  204 ;  Peck, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Fray,  88  Fed.  784;  Westinghouse 
Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Great  Northern  R.  Co.,  88 
Fed.  258,  31  C.  C.  A.  525;  United  Indurated 
Fibre  Co.  v.  Whippany  Mfg.  Co.,  83  Fed. 
485;  Pacific  Contracting  Co.  v.  Union  Pav- 
ing, etc.,  Co.,  80  Fed.  737;  Thomson-Houston 
Electric  Co.  v.  Ohio  Brass  Co.,  78  Fed.  139; 
Allington,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Booth,  72  Fed. 
772  [affirmed  in  78  Fed.  878,  24  C.  C.  A. 
378] ;  Columbia  Wire  Co.  v.  Freeman  Wire 
Co.,  71  Fed.  302;  Corser  v.  Brattleboro 
Overall  Co.,  59  Fed.  781;  Carter  v.  Woll- 
schlaeger,  53  Fed.  573 ;  New  York  Grape  Sugar 
Co.  V.  American  Grape  Sugar  Co.,  10  Fed.  835, 
20  Blatchf.  386;  White  v.  Heath,  10  Fed.  291; 
Plimpton  v.  Winslow,  3  Fed.  333;  Aiken  v. 
Dolan,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  110,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
197;  Clum  v.  Brewer,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,909, 
2  Curt.  506;  Colt  v.  Young,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,032,  2  Blatchf.  471 ;  Irwin  v.  Dane,  13  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,081,  2  Biss.  442,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
359;  Miller  v.  Androscoggin  Pulp  Co.,  17 


Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,559,  5  Fish,  Pat.  Cas.  340, 
Holmes  142,  1  Off.  Gaz.  409 ;  Parker  v.  Sears, 
18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,748,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
93;  Pentlarge  v.  Beeston,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,963,  3  Ban.  &  A.  142,  14  Blatchf.  352; 
Potter  v.  Fuller,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,327,  2 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  251;  Sanders  v.  Logan,  21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,295,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  167, 
2  Pittsb.  (Pa.)  241;  Sickels  v.  Mitchell,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,835,  3  Blatchf.  548T. 

4.  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Wag- 
ner  Electric   Mfg.    Co.,    130    Fed.    902;    Dia- 
mond  Match   Co.    v.    Union   Match   Co.,    129 
Fed.  602;   Hallock  v.  Babcock  Mfg.  Co.,   124 
Fed.   226;   Bradley  v.  Eccles,   120   Fed.  947; 
Scoville  Mfg.   Co.  v.   Patent   Button  Co.,   99 
Fed.   743;    Huntington  Dry-Pulverizer  Co.  v. 
Alpha    Portland    Cement   Co.,    91    Fed.    534; 
Overweight    Counterbalance    Elevator    Co.    v. 
Cahill,  etc.,  Elevator  Co.,  86  Fed.  338;  Nils- 
son  v.  Jefferson,  78   Fed.  366;   George  Ertel 
Co.   17.   Stahl,  65    Fed.   519,    13   C.  C.   A.  31; 
Rogers  Typographic  Co.  v.  Mergenthaler  Lin- 
otype  Co.,   58    Fed.    693;    Standard  Elevator 
Co.   v.   Crane   Elevator   Co.,    56    Fed.    718,    6 
C.  C.  A.  100;  Williams  v.  McNeely,  56  Fed. 
265;   Ironclad  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Jacob  J.  Vollrath 
Mfg.    Co.,   52    Fed.    143;    Dietz   Co.  v.   C.    T. 
Ham   Mfg.    Co.,   47    Fed.    320;    Southwestern 
Brush  Electric  Light,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Louisiana 
Electric    Light    Co.,    45    Fed.    893;    Kane    v. 
Huggins  Cracker,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Fed.  287;  Con- 
solidated  Roller-Mill    Co.   v.   Richmond   City 
Mill-Works,  40  Fed.  474;  Hurlburt  v.  Carter, 
39   Fed.   802;    National   Hat-Pouncing  Mach. 
Co.  v.   Hedden,  29   Fed.    147;    United  Nickel 
Co.  v.  New  Home  Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  17  Fed. 
528,   21    Blatchf.   415;    Hoe  v.   Boston  Daily 
Advertising   Corp.,    14  Fed.   914;   New  York 
Grape  Sugar   Co.  v.   American   Grape   Sugar 
Co.,   10   Fed.   835,  20  Blatchf.  386;   Pullman 
v.    Baltimore,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    5    Fed.    72,    4 
Hughes  236 ;  Essex  Hosiery  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Door 
Mfg.   Co.,  8   Fed.   Cas.  No.   4,533;   Guidet  v. 
Palmer,   11   Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,859,   10  Blatchf. 
217,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  82;  McGuire  v.  Eames, 
16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,814,  3  Ban.  &  A.  499,  15 
Blatchf.  312;  Morris  v.  Lowell  Mfg.  Co.,  17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,833,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  67. 

5.  Ladd  v.  Cameron,  25  Fed.  37;   Hall  V. 
Speer,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,947,  1  Pittsb.  (Pa.) 
513.    See  supra,  XIII,  C,  6,  d. 

6.  American    Nicholson    Pavement    Co.    v. 
Elizabeth,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  312,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  189;  American  Shoe-Tip  Co.  v.  National 
Shoe-Toe  Protector  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  317, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  551,  11  Off.  Gaz.  740;  Congress 
Rubber   Co.   v.   American   Elastic   Cloth   Co., 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,099a;  Goodyear  v.  Dunbar, 
10    Fed.    Cas.    No.    5,570,    1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas. 
472,  3  Wall.  Jr.  310;  Mitchell  v.  Barclay,  17 
Fed.   Cas.  No.   9,659;    Sargent  v.   Carter,   21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,362,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  277; 
Sargent  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Woodruff,  21   Fed.  Cas. 
No.    12,368,   5   Biss.   444.      Compare  Jones  V. 
Merrill,   13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,481,  8  Off.  Gaz. 

[XIII,  C.  11.  b,  (I)] 


1008     [80  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


expire.7  And  an  injunction  may  be  refused  where  the  granting  thereof  would 
work  great  injury  to  defendant  and  its  refusal  would  injure  plain  till  in  a  much  less 
degree.8  It  is  not  a  ground  to  deny  an  injunction  that  defendant  has  discontinued 
infringement  and  promised  not  to  renew  it.9  An  injunction  will  not  be  refused 
because  of  mere  inconvenience  to  the  public  or  to  defendant,10  but  where  the 
granting  thereof  would  injure  the  public  and  defendant  gives  security  it  may  be 
refused.11  It  is  not  a  ground  for  denying  an  injunction  that  it  may  be  used  for 
advertising  purposes  to  injure  defendant.12 

(n)  ISSUANCE  AND  VALIDITY  OF  PATENT.  No  injunction  can  be  granted 
before  issuance  of  a  patent,13  and  the  fact  that  the  complainant  owns  a  patent  and 
the  defendant  infringes  it  will  not  ordinarily  justify  a  preliminary  injunction.14 


401;    Morse  Fountain-Pen   Co.  v.  Esterbrook 
Steel-Pen  Mfg.   Co.,    17   Fed.  Cas.  No.   9,862, 

3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  515;  Wilson  v.  Barnum,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,787,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  635, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  749,  1  Wall.  Jr.  347. 

Reason  for  rule. —  The  grant  of  letters  pat- 
ent to  him  is  virtually  a  decision  by  the 
patent  office  that  there  is  a  substantial  dif- 
ference between  the  inventions,  and,  while 
the  presumption  may  be  overcome,  it  is  not 
to  be  disregarded  on  a  motion  for  prelimi- 
nary injunction.  American  Nicholson  Pave- 
ment Co.  v.  Elizabeth,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  312, 

4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189. 

7.  Keyes  v.  Eureka  Consol.  Min.  Co.,  158 
U.    S.    150,    15    S.    Ct.    772,   39    L.    ed.    929; 
Parker  v.  Sears,  18   Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,748,   1 
Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    93.     Contra,    Westinghouse 
Air-Brake    Co.    v.    Carpenter,    32    Fed.    484; 
Rumford    Chemical   Works  v.   Vice,    20    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,136,  2  Ban.  &  A.  584,  14  Blatchf. 
179,  11  Off.  Gaz.  600.     See  also  supra,  XIII, 
C,  2,  c. 

After  expiration  of  patent  the  sale  of 
articles  made  before  such  expiration  may  be 
enjoined.  New  York  Belting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ma- 
go  wan,  27  Fed.  111. 

8.  Bowers     Dredging     Co.    v.    New    York 
Dredging    Co.,    77    Fed.    980;    Root    v.    Mt. 
Adams,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    40    Fed.    760;    Day   v. 
Candee,  7   Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,676,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.   9;    Hockholzer   v.   Eager,    12    Fed.   Cas. 
No.    6,556,    2    Sawy.    361;    Morris    v.   Lowell 
Mfg.   Co.,    17    Fed.   Cas.   No.   9,833,   3    Fish. 
Pat.    Cas.    67;    Potter    v.   Whitney,    19    Fed. 
Cas.    No.    11,341,    3    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    77,    1 
Lowell  87. 

Limitation  of  rule. — An  injunction  will  not 
be  refused  for  hardship  on  defendant  where 
the  infringement  is  wilful  (Thomson-Houston 
Electric  Co.  v.  Jeffrey  I.lfg.  Co.,  144  Fed.  130 ; 
United  Indurated  Fibre  Co.  v.  Whippany 
Mfg.  Co.,  83  Fed.  485 ;  Norton  v.  Eagle  Auto- 
matic Can  Co.,  57  Fed.  929),  or  where  the 
validity  of  the  patent  is  fully  established  and 
its  infringement  clear  (Hodge  v.  Hudson 
River  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,560,  6 
Blatchf.  165). 

9.  Johnson  v.  Foos  Mfg.  Co.,  141  Fed.  73,  72 
C.  C.  A.  105;  General  Electric  Co.  v.  Bullock 
Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  138  Fed.  412;  Brookfield  v. 
Elmer    Glassworks,    132    Fed.    312;    C^nsoli- 
dated  Fastener  Co.  v.  Toppen,  113  Fed.  697; 
New  York  Filter  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chemical  Bldg. 
Co.,  93  Fed.  827;  Braddock  Glass  Co.  v.  Mac- 

[XIII,  C,  11,  b,{i)] 


beth,  64  Fed.  118,  12  C.  C.  A.  70;  New  York 
Belting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Gutta  Percha,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  56  Fed.  264;  Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v. 
Turner,  55  Fed.  979;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Arlington  Mfg.  Co.,  34  Fed.  324;  Goodyear 
v.  Berry,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,556,  2  Bond  189, 

3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  439;  Jenkins  v.  Greenwald, 
13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,270,  1   Bond  126,  2  Fish. 
Pat.   Cas.    37;    Potter   v.    Crowwell,    19   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,323,  1  Abb.  89,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
112;    Rumford    Chemical   Works   v.   Vice,   20 
Fed.   Cas.   No.   12,136,  2  Ban.   &  A.   584,    14 
Blatchf.    179,    11    Off.    Gaz.    600;    Sickels    v. 
Mitchell,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,835,  3  Blatchf. 
548;  Geary  v.  Norton,  1  De  G.  &  Sm.  9,  63 
Eng.  Reprint   949.    Contra,  General   Electric 
Co.  v.   Pittsburg-Buffalo   Co.,    144   Fed.   439; 
Silver  v.  J.  P.  Eustis  Mfg.  Co.,  130  Fed.  348; 
General  Electric  Co.  v.  New  England  Electric 
Mfg.  Co.,  123  Fed.  310;  Edison  Gen.  Electric 
Co.  v.  New  England  Electric  Mfg.   Co.,   121 
Fed.  125;  National  Cash-Register  Co.  v.  Bos- 
ton  Cash   Indicator,  etc.,   Co.,   41    Fed.    144; 
Brammer  v.  Jones,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,806,  2 
Bond  100,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  340. 

10.  Lanyon  Zinc   Co.   v.   Brown,    115   Fed. 
150,  53  C.*C.  A.  354;  Pelzer  v.  Binghamton, 
95  Fed.  823,  37  C.  C.  A.  288;   Poughkeepsie 
v.    National    Meter    Co.,    89    Fed.    1014,    32 
C.  C.  A.  463;  Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co.  v. 
Great  Northern  R.    Co.,   86    Fed.    132;    New 
York  Filter  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Niagara  Falls  Water- 
works   Co.,    80    Fed.   924,   26    C.    C.   A.    252; 
Thomson-Houston    Electric    Co.   v.   Union   R. 
Co.,    78    Fed.    365;    National    Meter    Co.    v. 
Poughkeepsie,  75  Fed.  405;  Goodyear  v.  New 
Jersey  Cent.  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,563, 
1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    626,    2    Wall.    Jr.    356; 
Sickels  v.  Tileston,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   12,837, 

4  Blatchf.  109. 

11.  American  Ordnance  Co.  v.  Driggs-Sea- 
bury   Co.,   87   Fed.   947;    Campbell   Printing- 
Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  47  Fed. 
663;  Southwestern  Brush  Electric  Light,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Louisiana  Electric  Light  Co.,  45  Fed. 
893;    Guidet   v.    Palmer,    11    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
5,859,  10  Blatchf.  217,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  82. 

12.  New  York  Belting,  etc.,   Co.  v.  Gutta 
Percha,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  56  Fed.  264. 

13.  Gayler    v.    Wilder,    10    How.    (U.    S.) 
477,  13  L.  ed.  504;   Standard  Scale,  etc.,  Co. 
v.     McDonald,     127     Fed.     709;     Hoeltge    v. 
Hoeller,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,574,  2  Bond  386. 

14.  Society  Anonyme,  etc.  v.  Allen,  84  Fed. 
812;   Palmer  Pneumatic  Tire  Co.  t?.  Newton 


P A  TENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1009 


The  validity  of  the  patent  must  be  made  to  clearly  appear  and  the  injunction 
will  be  refused  where  its  validity  is  doubtful.15  Ordinarily,  where  the  validity  of 
the  patent  has  neither  been  adjudicated  nor  acquiesced  in  by  the  public,  an 
injunction  will  be  refused,16  although  there  are  some  limitations  of  the  rule.17 


Rubber  Works,  73  Fed.  218;  Grover,  etc., 
Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Williams,  11  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,847,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  133;  Mitchell 
v.  Barclay,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,659;  Orr  v. 
Littlefield,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,590,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  323,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  13. 

15.  Aquarama  Co.  v.  Old  Mill  Co.,  115 
Fed.  806,  53  C.  C.  A.  376;  Welsbach  Light 
Co.  V.  Cosmopolitan  Incandescent  Light  Co., 
104  Fed.  83,  43  C.  C.  A.  418;  Hatch  Storage 
Battery  Co.  v.  Electric  Storage  Battery  Co., 
100  Fed.  975;  Welsbach  Light  Co.  v.  Cos- 
mopolitan Incandescent  Gaslight  Co.,  100 
Fed.  648;  Duff  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Kalamazoo  Rail- 
way-Supply Co.,  100  Fed.  357;  Overhead  R., 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Hiller,  98  Fed.  620;  Welsbach 
Light  Co.  v.  Rex  Incandescent  Light  Co.,  94 
Fed.  1005 ;  Bowers  Dredging  Co.  v.  New 
York  Dredging  Co.,  77  Fed.  980;  New  York 
Paper-Bag  Mach.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Western  Paper- 
Bag  Co.,  75  Fed.  395;  George  Ertel  Co.  v. 
Stahl,  65  Fed.  519,  13  C.  C.  A.  31;  Mack  v. 
Spencer,  44  Fed.  346;  Standard  Paint  Co.  v. 
Reynold,  43  Fed.  304;  Glaenzer  v.  Wiederer, 
33  Fed.  583;  Huber  v.  Myers  Sanitary  Depot, 
33  Fed.  48 ;  Baldwin  v.  Conway,  32  Fed.  795 ; 
Canfield  Rubber  Co.  v.  Gross,  32  Fed.  226; 
Osborn  v.  Judd,  29  Fed.  96;  Consolidated 
Safety-Valve  Co.  v.  Asblon  Valve  Co.,  26 
Fed.  319;  Bradley  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Charles 
Parker  Co.,  17  Fed.  240;  Brewster  v.  Parry, 
14  Fed.  694;  Illingworth  v.  Spaulding,  9  Fed. 
154 ;  Consolidated  Safety-Valve  Co.  v.  Crosby 
Steam-Gauge,  etc.,  Co.,  7  Fed.  768;  White 
v.  S.  Harris,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  161; 
American  Shoe-Tip  Co.  v.  National  Shoe-Toe 
Protector  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  317,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  551,  11  Off.  Gaz.  740;  Isaacs  v.  Cooper, 
13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,096,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
332,  4  Wash.  259;  Jones  v.  Hodges,  13  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,469,  Holmes  37;  McGuire  v. 
Eames,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,814,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
499,  15  Blatchf.  312;  Mannie  v.  Everett,  16 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,039;  Poppenhusen  /;.  Falke,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,279,  4  Blatchf.  493,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  181;  Sullivan  v.  Redfield,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,597,  1  Paine  441,  1  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  477;  Wilson  Packing  Co.  v.  Clapp,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,850,  3  Ban.  &  A.  243,  8 
Biss.  154,  13  Off.  Gaz.  368;  Winans  v.  Eaton, 
30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,861,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
181;  Sugg  v.  Silber,  2  Q.  B.  D.  493;  Daven- 
port t/.  Rylands,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  302,  12  Jur. 
N.  S.  71,  35  L.  J.  Ch.  204,  14  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  53,  14  Wkly.  Rep.  243 ;  Hill  v.  Evans, 
4  De  G.  F.  &  J.  288,  8  Jur.  N.  S.  525,  31 
L.  J.  Ch.  457,  1  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  90,  65 
Eng.  Ch.  223,  45  Eng.  Reprint  1195;  Foxwell 
v.  Webster,  4  De  G.  J.  &  S.  77,  10  Jur.  N.  S. 
137,  9  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  528,  12  Wkly.  Rep. 
186,  69  Eng.  Ch.  60,  46  Eng.  Ch.  60,  46  Eng. 
Reprint  844;  Curtis  v.  Cutts,  3  Jur.  34,  8 
L.  J.  Ch.  184;  Davenport  V.  Jepson,  1  New 
Rep.  173. 

[64] 


16.  Sharp  v.  Bellinger,  155  Fed.  139;  Earll 
v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  157  Fed.  241 ;  Hall 
Signal  Co.  v.  General  R.  Signal  Co.,  153  Fed. 
907,  82  C.  C.  A.  653;  Karfiol  v.  Rothner,  151 
Fed.  777;  Bristol  Oil,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Beacon,  143 
Fed.  550;   Alphons  Custodis  Chimney  Const. 
Co.  v.  H.  R.  Heinicke,  135  Fed.  552;  Silver  v. 
J.  P.  Eustis  Mfg.  Co.,  130  Fed.  348;  Newhall 
v.  McCabe  Hanger  Mfg.  Co.,  125  Fed.  919,  60 
C.  C.  A.  629 ;  Pennsylvania  Globe  Gaslight  Co. 
v.  American  Lighting  Co.,  117  Fed.  324;  Reed 
Mfg.    Co.  v.   Smith,  etc.,   Co.,   107    Fed.   719, 
46  C.  C.  A.  601;    Planters'  Compress  Co.  v. 
Moore,  etc.,  Co.,  106  Fed.  500;  American  Sul- 
phite   Pulp    Co.    v.    Burgess    Sulphate    Fibre 
Co.,    103    Fed.   975;    Smith  v.   Meriden   Brit- 
tania  Co.,  97   Fed.  987,  39  C.  C.  A.  32    [af- 
firming 92  Fed.   1003]  ;   Elliott  v.  Harris,  92 
Fed.  374;    Richmond  Mica   Co.   v.  De  Clyne, 
90   Fed.   661;    Wilson  v.   Consolidated  Store- 
Service   Co.,   88   Fed.   286,  31   C.   C.   A.   533; 
Williams  v.  Breitling  Metal-Ware   Mfg.  Co., 
77    Fed.    285,   23   C.   C.   A.    171;    Johnson  v. 
Aldrich,    40    Fed.    675;    Raymond    v.    Boston 
Woven    Hose    Co.,    39    Fed.    365;    Dickerson 
v.  De  la  Vergne  Refrigerating  Mach.  Co.,  35 
Fed.    143;    Edward    Barr    Co.    v.   New    York, 
etc.,  Automatic  Sprinkler  Co.,  32  Fed.  79,  24 
Blatchf.   566;    Johnson  Ruffler   Co.   v.  Avery 
Mach.   Co.,    28   Fed.    193;    Fish   v.   Domestic 
Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  12  Fed.  495;  Kirby  Bung 
Mfg.   Co.   v.   White,    1    Fed.   604,    1   McCrary 
155 ;  Doughty  v.  West,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,029, 
2  Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   553;   Earth  Closet  Co.   v. 
Fenner,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,249,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.    15;    Jones   v.   Field,    13   Fed.    Cas.   No. 
7,461,  2  Ban.  &  A.  39,  12  Blatchf.  494;  Noe 
17.  Prentice,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,284;   North 
v.    Kershaw,    18    Fed.    Cas.    No.    10,311,    4 
Blatchf.  70;  Stevens  v.  Felt,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,397. 

17.  Limitations  of  rule. —  The  rule,  it  has 
been  said,  applies  only  when  there  is  some 
question   as   to   the  validity  of   the   patents. 
Fuller  v.  Gilmore,    121    Fed.    129;    Foster   v. 
Crossin,    23    Fed.    400.      It    does    not    apply 

.where  the  invention  is  both  new  and  useful 
and  there  is  no  evidence  assailing  the  valid- 
ity of  the  patent  (Fuller  v.  Gilmore,  supra', 
Wilson  v.  Consolidated  Store-Service  Co.,  88 
Fed.  286,  31  C.  C.  A.  533;  Hussey  Mfg.  Co. 
17.  Deering,  20  Fed.  795 )  ;  where  defendant 
has  for  three  years  been  making  and  selling 
the  patented  article  under  a  license  subse- 
quently terminated,  and  since  the  termina- 
tion of  the  license  has  been  marking  the  arti- 
cles sold  by  him  as  made  under  the  patent 
(Adam  ?;.  Folger,  120  Fed.  200,  56  C.  C.  A. 
540)  ;  where  it  clearly  appears  that  the 
patent  has  been  intentionally  infringed  under 
a  patent  procured  for  that  purpose  (Plimp- 
ton v.  Winslow,  3  Fed.  333)  ;  or  where  there 
is  no  prior  patent  or  publication  submitted, 
nor  any  statement  as  to  the  prior  state  of 

[XIII,  C,  11,  b,  (II)] 


1010     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


(m)  PUBLIC  ACQUIESCENCE  IN  VALIDITY.  A  long  continued  and  public 
acquiescence  in  the  claims  of  the  patentee  may  justify  the  acceptance  of  the 
patent  as  valid  for  the  purpose  of  a  preliminary  injunction18  without  an  adjudi- 
cation of  validity.19  What  constitutes  acquiescence  depends  on  the  facts  of  each 
particular  case.20 

(iv)  PREVIOUS  ADJUDICATIONS^ —  (A)  As  a  Prerequisite  to  the  Allowance 
of  Injunctions.  A  prior  adjudication  at  law  sustaining  the  patent  is  not  an  abso- 
lute prerequisite  to  an  injunction,22  although  the  court  in  its  discretion  may  require 
it.23  While  the  right  should  be  clear,  it  may  be  made  to  appear  otherwise  than 
by  a  judgment  or  decree.24  A  preliminary  injunction  may  be  granted  without 


the  art,  the  presumption  induced  by  the 
granting  of  the  patent  being  sufficient  to 
warrant  the  issuing  of  an  injunction  (Seiden- 
berg  v.  Davidson,  112  Fed.  431).  Suit  on  the 
facts  appearing  defendant  may  be  estopped 
to  deny  the  validity  of  the  patent.  Burr  v. 
Kimbark,  28  Fed.  574;  Onderdonk  v.  Fan- 
ning, 4  Fed.  148;  American  Shoe-Tip  Co.  v. 
National  Shoe-Tip  Protector  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  317,  2  Ban.  &  A.  551,  11  Off.  Gaz. 
740. 

18.  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Stanley  Instrument  Co.,  133  Fed.  167,  68 
C.  C.  A.  523;  Smith  v.  Meriden  Britannia 
Co.,  97  Fed.  987,  39  C.  C.  A.  32;  Peck,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Fray,  88  Fed.  784;  Columbia  Wire  Co. 
v.  Freeman  Wire  Co.,  71  Fed.  302;  Kennedy 
v.  Penn  Iron,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Fed.  339 ;  Corser  v. 
Brattleboro  Overall  Co.,  59  Fed.  781;  Blount 
f\  Societe  Anonyme,  etc.,  53  Fed.  98,  3  C.  C.  A. 
455;  Sessions  v.  Gould,  49  Fed.  855;  McWil- 
liams  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Blundell,  11  Fed.  419; 
Tyler  v.  Crane,  7  Fed.  775;  American  Shoe- 
Tip  Co.  v.  National  Shoe-Toe  Protector  Co.,  1 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  317,  2  Ban.  &  A.  551,  11  Off. 
Gaz.  740;  Bur'eigh  Rock  Drill  Co.  V.  Lobdell, 

4  Fed.    Cas.    No.    2,166,    1    Ban.    &   A.    625, 
Holmes  450,  7  Off.  Gaz.  836 ;  Chase  v.  Wesson, 

5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,631,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  517, 
Holmes  274,  4  Off.  Gaz.  476;  Orr  v.  Badger, 
18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,587;  Orr  v.  Littlefield,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,590,  2  Robb  Pat.  €as.  323,  1 
Woodb.    &   M.    13;    Sargent   v.   Seagrave,   21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,365,  2  Curt.  553;  Thomas  v. 
Weeks,   23   Fed.   Cas.  No.   13,914,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  5,  2  Paine  92;   Woodworth  v.  Hall,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,016,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  495,  1 
Woodb.    &    M.    248.      Acquiescence    must   be 
clearlv  shown.     Keasbey,  etc.,   Co.  v.  Philip 
Carey"  Mfg.  Co.,  139  Fed.  571;  American  Coat 
Pad 'Co.  v.  Phoenix  Pad  Co.,  113  Fed.  629,  51 
C.   C.   A.   339;    Keasbey,  etc.,   Co.  v.  Phillip 
Carey  Co.,  110  Fed.  747;  Mannie  v.  Everett, 
16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,039. 

Acquiescence  in  claim  of  right  before  is- 
suance of  patent  may  be  entitled  to  weight 
in  considering  whether  the  patentee  is  en- 
titled to  a  preliminary  injunction.  Sargent 
v.  Seagrave,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,365,  2  Curt. 
553. 

Acquiescence  in  the  original  patent  does 
not  apply  to  a  reissue.  Grover,  etc.,  Sewing- 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Williams,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,847, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  133. 

Mere  failure  to  infringe  is  not  acquiescence. 
Welsbach  Light  Co.  v.  Benedict,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  82  Fed.  747;  Stahl  v.  Williams,  52  Fed. 

[XIII,  C,  11,  b,  (m)] 


648;    Guidet    v.    Palmer,    11    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
5,859,  10  Blatchf.  217,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  82. 

19.  Hill  v.  Thompson,  Holt  N.  P.   636,  3 
E.  C.  L.  249,  3  Meriv.  622,  17  Rev.  Rep.  156, 
36   Eng.  Reprint  239,   2  Moore  C.  P.  424,  8 
Taunt.  375,  20  Rev.  Rep.  488,  4  E.  C.  L.  190; 
Davenport  v.  Richard,  3  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  503. 

20.  Consolidated  Fastener  Co.  V.  American 
Fastener  Co.,  94  Fed.  523;  Nilsson  v.  Jeffer- 
son, 78  Fed.  366;  Mitchell  v.  Barclay,  17  Fed. 
Cas.   No.    9,659;    Potter   v.   MuMer,    19   Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,334,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465;  Sar- 
gent r.  Seagrave,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,365,  2 
Curt.  553. 

For  facts  held  to  show  acquiescence  see 
McDowell  t-.  Kurtz,  77  Fed.  206,  23  C.  C.  A. 
119;  Thomson  Electric  Welding  Co.  v.  Two 
Rivers  Mfg.  Co.,  63  Fed.  120;  ^hite  v.  Hun- 
ter, 47  Fed.  819. 

For  facts  held  not  to  shew  acquiescence  see 
Palmer  v.  John  E.  Brown  Mfg.  Co.,  84  Fed. 
454  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  92  Fed. 
925,  35  C.  C.  A.  86]  ;  Palmer  Pneumatic  Tire 
Co.  v.  Newton  Rubber  Works  Co.,  73  Fed. 
218;  Corbin  Catinet  Lock  Co.  v.  Yale,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  58  Fed.  563 ;  Upton  v.  Wayland,  36 
Fed.  691;  Guidet  v.  Palmer,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,859,  10  Blatchf.  217,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  82. 

21.  Operation  and  effect  of  previous  adjudi- 
cations in  general  see  infra,  XIII,  E. 

22.  Cochrane  v.  Deener,  94  U.  S.  780,  24 
L.  ed.   139;  Lambert  Snyder  Vibrator  Co.  v. 
Marvel  Vibrator  Co.,  138  Fed.  82;  Wilson  v. 
Consolidated  Stove-Service  Co.,  88  Fed.  286, 
31  C.  C.  A.  533 ;  Gary  Mfg.  Co.  v.  De  Haven, 
58  Fed.  786;  Motte  v.  Bennett,  17  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,884,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   642;   Potter  r. 
Muller,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,334,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  465;  Shelly  v.  Brannan,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,751,  2   Biss.   315,  4  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.    198; 
Clark   v.    Fergusson,    1    Giffard    184,    5   Jur. 
N.  S.   1155,  65  Eng.  Reprint  878;   Young  v. 
Fernie,  9  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  590,  3  New  Rep. 
270,  12  Wkly.  Rep.  221. 

23.  Miller   v.   McElroy,   2   Pa.   L.   J.   305; 
Wise   v.   Grand   Ave.   R.    Co.,    33   Fed.    277; 
Booth  v.  Garelly,   3   Fed.   Cas.  No.    1,646,   1 
Blatchf.  247,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  154;  Brooks  v. 
Bicknell,   4   Fed.   Cas.   No.    1,946,   Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  72,  4  McLean  70;   Bryan  v.  Stevens,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,066o;   Cooper  r.  Mattheys,  0 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,200,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  38;  Muscan 
Hair  Mfg.  Co.  v.  American  Hair  Mfg.  Co.,  17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9.970,  4  Blatchf.   174,  1   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  320;  Ocfle  T.  Ege,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10.462,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  516,  4  Wash.  584. 

24.  Gary  Mfg.   Co.  v.  De   Haven,   58   Fed. 


PATENTS 


Cye.]     1011 


prior  adjudication  in  view  of  acquiescence  by  the  public,25  and  sometimes  a  pre- 
liminary injunction  may  issue  when  the  validity  of  the  patent  is  clear,  even  though 
it  has  not  been  sustained  by  a  prior  adjudication  or  public  acquiescence.26 

(B)  As  a  Ground  For  Refusing  or  Granting  Injunctions.  A  preliminary 
injunction  will  be  refused  where  a  prior  adjudication  was  against  the  patent,27  or 
where  it  has  been  adjudged  by  a  circuit  court  of  appeals  of  another  circuit,  after 
full  consideration  and  upon  substantially  the  same  record  that  defendant's  device 
does  not  infringe.28  Where  the  patent  has  been  sustained  either  at  law  or  in 
equity,  such  injunction  will  ordinarily  be  granted,29  unless  new  evidence  is  pre- 


786;  Blount  v.  Societe  Anonyme,  etc.,  53  Fed. 
98,  9  C.  C.  A.  526. 

25.  National  Typographic  Co.  v.  New  York 
Typograph  Co.,  46   Fed.   114;   White  v.  Sur- 
dam,  41  Fed.  790;  Buck  v.  Cobb,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   2,079,   Brunn.   Col.   Cas.   550;    Foster   v. 
Moore,  9  Fed.   Cas.  No.  4,978,   1   Curt.  279; 
Goodyear  v.  Central  R.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,563,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  626,  2  Wall.  Jr.  356; 
Grover,  etc.,  Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Williams,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,847,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   133; 
Gutta  Percha,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Goodyear  Rub- 
ber Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,879,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
212,   3   Sawy.   542;    Hockholzer  v.   Eager,    12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,556,  2  Sawy.  361;  Mitchell  v. 
Barclay,    17    Fed.    Cas.    No.    9,659;    Muscan 
Hair   Mfg.   Co.   v.   American   Hair  Mfg.   Co., 

17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,970,  4  Blatchf.  174,  1  Fish. 
Pat.   Cas.  320;   Washburn  v.  Gould,  29  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    17,214,    2    Robb    Pat.    Cas.    206,    3 
Story    122;    Weston  v.   White,   29    Fed.   Cas. 
No.  17,459,  2  Ban.  &  A.  364,  13  Blatchf.  447; 
Dudgeon  v.  Thomson,  3  App.  Cas.  34  la/firm- 
ing 30  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  244,  22  Wkly.  Rep. 
464]. 

26.  Wyckoff  v.  Wagner  Typewriter  Co.,  88 
Fed.   515;    Foster   v.   Crossin,   23    Fed.   400; 
Gardner  v.  Broadbent,  2  Jur.  N.  S.   1041,  4 
Wkly.    Rep.    767;    Renard   v.   Levinstein,    10 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  94  [affirmed  in  10  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.   177].     But  see  Plympton  v.  Malcolm- 
son,  L.  R.  20   Eq.   37,  44  L.  J.   Ch.  257,   23 
Wkly.  Rep.  404. 

27.  American  Graphophone  Co.  v.  National 
Gramophone   Co.,   92   Fed.   364,   34   C.   C.  A. 
412;    Edison  Electric   Light  Co.   v.   Citizens' 
Electric  Light,  etc.,  Co.,  64  Fed.  491;  Hicks 
v.  Beardsley,  32  Fed.  281;   Keyes  v.  Pueblo 
Smelting,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Fed.  560;   Concord  v. 
Norton,  16  Fed.  477;  Onderdonk  v.  Fanning, 

18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,510a,  5  Ban.  &  A.  562; 
Price's  Patent  Candle  Co.  v.  Bauwen's  Patent 
Candle  Co.,  6  Wkly.  Rep.  318. 

28.  Calculagraph    Co.    v.   Automatic    Time 
Stamp  Co.,  149  Fed.  436. 

29.  Scott  v.  Laas,  150  Fed.  764,  80  C.  C.  A. 
500;  Elite  Pottery  Co.  v.  Dececo  Co.,  150  Fed. 
581,  80  C.  C.  A.  567;  Timolat  v.  Philadelphia 
Pneumatic  Tool  Co.,  123  Fed.  899;  Westing- 
house   Electric,   etc.,    Co.   v.   Royal   Weaving 
Co.,  115  Fed.  733;  Diehl  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Dayton 
Fan,  etc.,  Co.,  109  Fed.  566;  Brill  v.  Peckham 
Motor   Truck   Co.,    105    Fed.    626;    American 
Sulphite  Pulp  Co.  v.  Burgess  Sulphite  Fibre 
Co.,  103  Fed.  975;  Consolidated  Fastener  Co. 
v.  Hays,  100  Fed.  984,  41  C.  C.  A.  142;  Wels- 
bach   Light    Co.   v.   Rex   Incandescent   Light 
Co.,  94  Fed.   1006;  Duff  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Norton, 


92  Fed.  921;  New  York  Filter  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Loomis-Manning  Filter  Co.,  91  Fed.  421; 
Allington,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Globe  Co.,  89  Fed. 
865;  Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Great 
Northern  R.  Co.,  86  Fed.  132;  Southern  Pac. 
Co.  v.  Earl,  82  Fed.  690,  27  C.  C.  A.  185; 
Adams  v.  Tannage  Patent  Co.,  81  Fed.  178, 
26  C.  C.  A.  326;  Carroll  v.  Goldschmidt,  80 
Fed.  520;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v. 
H.  W.  Johns  Mfg.  Co.,  78  Fed.  364;  Thomson- 
Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Union  R.  Co.,  78 
Fed.  363;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v. 
Johnson  Co.,  78  Fed.  361;  Woodard  v.  Ell- 
word  Gas  Stove,  etc.,  Co.,  68  Fed.  717;  Nor- 
ton v.  Eagle  Automatic  Can  Co.,  57  Fed. 
929;  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  Cushman,  57 
Fed.  842;  S.  S.  White  Dental  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Johnson,  56  Fed.  262;  Consolidated  Electric 
Storage  Co.  v.  Accumulator  Co.,  55  Fed.  485, 
5  C.  C.  A.  202;  Carter  v.  Wollschlaeger,  53 
Fed.  573 ;  Putnam  v.  Keystone  Bottle  Stopper 
Co.,  38  Fed.  234;  Schneider  v.  Missouri  Glass 
Co.,  36  Fed.  582;  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v. 
National  Improved  Tel.  Co.,  27  Fed.  663; 
Cary  v.  Domestic  Spring-Bed  Co.,  27  Fed. 
299;  Cary  v.  Lovell  Mfg.  Co.,  24  Fed.  141; 
Mallory  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hickok,  20  Fed.  116; 
Coburn  v.  Brainard,  16  Fed.  412,  5  McCrary 
215;  Cot  urn  17.  Clark,  15  Fed.  804,  5  Mc- 
Crary 99;  Kirby  Bung  Mfg.  Co.  v.  White,  1 
Fed.  604,  1  McCrary  155;  Woven- Wire  Mat- 
tress Co.  v.  Wire- Web  Bed  Co.,  1  Fed.  222; 
American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  Christian, 
1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  307,  3  Ban.  &  A.  42,  4  Dill. 
448;  American  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.  v. 
Elizabeth,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  312,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  189;  American  Wood-Paper  Co.  v.  Fibre 
Disintegrating  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  320,  6 
Blatchf.  27,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  362  [affirmed 
in  23  Wall.  566,  23  L.  ed.  31];  Clum  v. 
Brewer,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,909,  2  Curt.  506; 
Conover  v.  Mers,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,123,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  386;  Cook  v.  Ernest,  6  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  3,155,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  396,  1  Woods 
195,  2  Off.  Gaz.  89;  Gibson  v.  Betts,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,390,  1  Blatchf.  163,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  91;  Goodyear  v.  Berry,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,556,  2  Bond  189,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  439; 
Goodyear  v.  Honsinger,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,572,  2  Biss.  1,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  147;  Green 
v.  French,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,757,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
169,  16  Off.  Gaz.  215  [following  Gibson  v. 
Van  Dresar,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,402,  1  Blatchf. 
532,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  369];  Hitchcock  v. 
Shoninger  Melodeon  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,537;  Orr  v.  Badger,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,587, 
Brunn.  Col.  Cas.  536 ;  Pennsylvania  Salt  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Myers,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,955,  1  Wkly. 

[XIII,  C,  ll,b,  (IV),  (B)] 


1012     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


sented  such  as  would  have  changed  the  prior  decision.90     Such  prior  adjudication, 
however,  unless  made  by  the  United  States  supreme  court  or  the  circuit  court  of 


Notes  Cas.  (Pa.)  377;  Poppenhusen  v.  New 
York  Gutta  Percha  Comb  Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,281,  4  Blatchf.  184,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
74;  Potter  v.  Muller,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,334, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465;  Robertson  v.  Hill,  20 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,925,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465,  4 
Off.  Gaz.  132;  Rumford  Chemical  Works  v. 
Hecker,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,133,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
351,  10  Off.  Gaz.  289;  Rumford  Chemical 
Works  v.  Hecker,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,134, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  386,  11  Off.  Gaz.  330;  Sickels  v. 
Tileston,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,837,  4  Blatchf. 
109;  Tilghman  v.  Mitchell,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,042,  9  Blatchf.  18,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  615 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  19  Wall.  287, 
22  L.  ed.  125] ;  Van  Hook  v.  Wood,  28  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,855;  Bovill  v.  Goodier,  L.  R.  2 
Eq.  195,  12  Jur.  N.  S.  404,  35  L.  J.  Ch.  432; 
Newall  v.  Wilson,  2  De  G.  M.  &  G.  282,  51 
Eng.  Ch.  220,  42  Eng.  Reprint  880. 

Although  the  parties  are  different,  the 
prior  adjudication  has  great  weight.  A.  B. 
Dick  Co.  v.  Pomeroy  Duplicator  Co.,  117  Fed. 
154;  American  Paper  Pail,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Na- 
tional Folding  Box,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  229,  2 
C.  C.  A.  165;  Burr  v.  Prentiss,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,194;  Potter  v.  Fuller,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,327,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  251;  Potter  v.  Whit- 
ney, 19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,341,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
77,  1  Lowell  87. 

Where  appeal  or  writ  of  error  pending,  ad- 
judication is  not  binding.  Bowers  Dredging 
Co.  t7.  New  York  Dredging  Co.,  77  Fed.  980; 
Day  v.  Hartshorn,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,683,  3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  32;  Bridson  t?.  McAlpine,  8 
Beav.  229,  50  Eng.  Reprint  90. 

Where  decision  is  reversed  injunction 
granted  on  prior  adjudication  will  be  dis- 
solved. Brill  v.  Peckham  Mfg.  Co.,  135  Fed. 
784,  68  C.  C.  A.  486;  Prieth  v.  Campbell 
Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.,  80  Fed.  539,  25 
C.  C.  A.  624. 

Interlocutory  motion. —  Ruling  even  on  in- 
terlocutory motion  may  be  followed.  Mait- 
land  v.  Graham,  96  Fed.  247;  Duff  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Norton,  92  Fed.  921;  Horn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Pelzer,  91  Fed.  665,  34  C.  C.  A.  45. 

Decision  in  interference  in  patent  office  is 
not  a  controlling  adjudication  (Reed  Mfg.  Co. 
17.  Smith,  etc.,  Co.,  107  Fed.  719,  46  C.  C.  A. 
601;  Wilson  v.  Consolidated  Store-Service 
Co.,  88  Fed.  286,  31  C.  C.  A.  533  [reversing 
83  Fed.  201];  Empire  State  Nail  Co.  v. 
American  Solid  Leather  Button  Co.,  61  Fed. 
650;  Dickerson  v.  De  la  Vergne  Refrigerating 
Mach.  Co.,  35  Fed.  143;  Potter  v.  Stevens,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,338,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  163), 
but  may  be  sufficient  between  parties  (Con- 
solidated Bunging  Apparatus  Co.  v.  Peter 
Schoenhofen  Brewing  Co.,  28  Fed.  428;  Cellu- 
loid Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chrolithian  Collar,  etc.,  Co., 
24  Fed.  275;  Smith  v.  Halkyard,  16  Fed. 
414). 

Whether  judgment  on  original  patent  shall 
be  followed  on  reissue  depends  on  circum- 
stances. American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v. 
Atlantic  Milling  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  305,  3 

[XIII,  C,   11,  b,  (IV),  (B)] 


Ban.  &  A.  168,  4  Dill.  100;  Poppenhusen  v. 
Falke,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,279,  4  Blatchf. 
493,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  181;  Wells  v.  Jacques. 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,399,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
136. 

30.  Brill  v.  Peckham  Mfg.  Co.,  129  Fed. 
139;  George  Frost  Co.  v.  Crandall  Wedge 
Co.,  123  Fed.  104  [affirmed  in  125  Fed.  942, 
60  C.  C.  A.  180] ;  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Royal  Weaving  Co.,  115  Fed.  733; 
American  Sulphite  Pulp  Co.  v.  Burgess  Sul- 
phite Fibre  Co.,  103  Fed.  975;  Welsbach 
Light  Co.  v.  Rex  Incandescent  Light  Co.,  94 
Fed.  1006;  Duff  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Kalamazoo  R. 
Velocipede,  etc.,  Co.,  94  Fed.  154;  Tripp  Giant 
Leveler  Co.  v.  Bresnahan,  92  Fed.  391;  Doig 
v.  Morgan  Mach.  Co.,  91  Fed.  1001,  33  C.  C.  A. 
683;  New  York  Filter  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Jackson,  91 
Fed.  422 ;  Doig  v.  Morgan  Mach.  Co.,  89  Fed. 
489;  Consolidated  Car  Heating  Co.  v.  Gold 
Car  Heating  Co.,  87  Fed.  996 ;  Mast  v.  Stover 
Mfg.  Co.,  85  Fed.  782;  Bowers  v.  Pacific  Coast 
Dredging,  etc.,  Co.,  81  Fed.  569;  Bowers 
Dredging  Co.  v.  New  York  Dredging  Co.,  80 
Fed.  119;  Tannage  Patent  Co.  v.  Adams,  77 
Fed.  191;  Earl  v.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  75  Fed. 
609 ;  Tannage  Patent  Co.  v,  Donallan,  75  Fed. 
287;  Bresnahan  i\  Tripp  Giant  Leveler  Co., 
72  Fed.  920,  19  C.  C.  A.  237;  Allington,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Lynch,  71  Fed.  409;  Singer  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  New  Home  Sewing-Mach.  Co.,  70  Fed. 
985;  Philadelphia  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  V.  Edison 
Electric  Light  Co.,  65  Fed.  551,  13  C.  C.  A. 
40 ;  Electric  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Edison  Electric  Light 
Co.,  61  Fed.  834,  10  C.  C.  A.  106;  Norton  v. 
Eagle  Automatic  Can  Co.,  61  Fed.  293;  Nor- 
ton v.  Eagle  Automatic  Can  Co.,  57  Fed.  929 ; 
Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Electric  Mfg. 
Co.,  57  Fed.  616;  Accumulator  Co.  v.  Con- 
solidated Electric  Storage  Co.,  53  Fed.  796 
[affirmed  in  55  Fed.  485,  5  C.  C.  A.  202]; 
National  Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  r.  American 
Paper  Pail,  etc.,  Co.,  48  Fed.  913;  Ladd  r. 
Cameron,  25  Fed.  37 ;  Bailey  Wringing  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Adams,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  752,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  96,  5  Reporter  102;  Blaisdell  v.  Dows, 
3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,489,  4  Ban.  &  A.  499; 
Jones  v.  Merrill,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,481,  8 
Off.  Gaz.  401;  Parker  v.  Brant,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,727,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  58. 

That  injunction  may  be  granted  upon  prior 
adjudication  notwithstanding  new  evidence 
see  Armat  Moving  Picture  Co.  v.  Edison  Mfg. 
Co.,  121  Fed.  559  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  125  Fed.  939,  60  C.  C.  A. 
380] ;  Consolidated  Fastener  Co.  v.  Hays, 
100  Fed.  984;  New  York  Filter  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Niagara  Falls  Waterworks  Co.,  80 
Fed.  924,  26  C.  C.  A.  252 ;  Campbell  Printing- 
Press  Co.  v.  Prieth,  77  Fed.  976;  Tannage 
Patent  Co.  v.  Donallan,  75  Fed.  287;  Sawyer 
Spindle  Co.  v.  Taylor,  56  Fed.  110;  Macbeth 
v.  Braddock  Glass  Co.,  54  Fed.  173  [affirmed 
in  64  Fed.  118,  12  C.  C.  A.  70];  Carter  v. 
Wollschlaeger,  53  Fed.  573;  Brush  Electric 
Co.  r.  Accumulator  Co.,  50  Fed.  833 ;  Seibert 
Cylinder  Oil-Cup  Co.  v.  Michigan  Lubricator 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     1013 


appeals81  is  not  controlling  upon  the  judgment  of  the  court  but  merely  persua- 
sive.32 The  prior  adjudication  will  not  be  followed  where  the  points  involved 
were  not  fairly  in  issue  and  decided,33  or  where  there  was  collusion,34  and  an  adju- 
dication without  contest  is  not  sufficient  upon  which  to  base  a  preliminary  injunc- 
tion.35 There  is  some  conflict  of  authority  as  to  whether  an  injunction  will  be 
granted  where  there  are  conflicting  prior  adjudications.86 

(o)  Effect  on  Question  of  Infringement.  Prior  adjudication  as  to  the  valid- 
ity of  a  patent  leaves  open  the  question  of  infringement,87 

(v)  TERMS  AND  CONDITIONS.  The  terms  and  conditions  to  be  imposed  in 
disposing  of  a  motion  for  an  injunction  rest  in  the  sound  discretion  of  the  court 
and  depend  upon  the  special  circumstances  of  the  case.38 


Co.,  34  Fed.  33 ;  Birdsall  v.  Hagerstown  Agri- 
cultural Implement  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,433,  1  Ban.  &  A.  426,  6  Off.  Gaz.  604.  The 
new  evidence  is  to  be  accepted  with,  caution 
and  must  be  clear  and  convincing  to  warrant 
what  is  substantially  a  reversal  of  a  prior 
adjudication.  Consolidated  Fastener  Co.  v. 
Hays,  100  Fed.  984. 

31.  Adjudication  of  United  States  supreme 
court  or  circuit  court  of  appeals  is  conclu- 
sive.    Westinghouse  Air  Brake  Co.  V.  Chris- 
tiansen Engineering  Co.,  113  Fed.  594;  Ameri- 
can  Sulphite   Pulp   Co.   v.   Burgess   Co.,    103 
Fed.  975;  Bowers  Dredging  Co.  v.  New  York 
Dredging  Co.,  80  Fed.  119;  American  Bell  Tel. 
Co.    v.    McKeesport    Tel.    Co.,    57    Fed.    661; 
American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  Christian, 

1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  307,  3  Ban.  &  A.  42,  4  Dill. 
448;    Richardson  v.  Lockwood,  20   Fed.   Cas. 
No.  11,786,  4  Cliff.  128. 

32.  Diamond   Match    Co.    v.   Union   Match 
Co.,    129   Fed.   602;    Western  Electric  Co.  v. 
Keystone  Tel.  Co.,  115  Fed.  809;  Brunswick- 
Balke-Collender  Co.  V.  Koehler,  115  Fed.  648; 
Welsbach  Light   Co.  v.   Cosmopolitan  Incan- 
descent Light  Co.,   104  Fed.  83,  43  C.  C.  A. 
418;  Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Anthracite  Tel. 
Co.,  100  Fed.  301;  Horn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Pel- 
zer,   91    Fed.   665,   34   C.   C.   A.   45;    Ross   v. 
Chicago,    91    Fed.    265;    Stover    Mfg.    Co.    v. 
Mast,  89  Fed.  333,  32  C.  C.  A.  231;   Societe 
Anonyme,  etc.,  v.  Allen,  84  Fed.  812;  Bowers 
v.   San   Francisco   Bridge   Co.,    69   Fed.    640; 
Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Columbia  Incan- 
descent   Lamp    Co.,    56    Fed.    496 ;    Stahl    v. 
Williams,  52  Fed.  648;  Jacobson  v.  Alpi,  46 
Fed.   767;    Lockwood  v.   Faber,   27   Fed.   63; 
Cornell  v.  Littlejohn,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,238, 

2  Ban.  &  A.  324,  9  Off.  Gaz.  837,  922;  U.  S., 
etc.,  Felting  Co.  v.  Asbestos  Felting  Co.,  28 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,787,  10  Off.  Gaz.  828. 

33.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Earl,  82  Fed. 
690,  27  C.  C.  A.  185;  American  Graphaphone 
Co.    v.   Leeds,    77    Fed.    193;    National   Hat- 
Pouncing  Mach.  Co.  v.  Hedden,  29  Fed.  147; 
Page  v.   Holmes   Burglar  Alarm  Tel.   Co.,   2 
Fed.  330,  18  Blatchf.  118;  Grover  v.  Williams, 
11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,847,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  133; 
Parker  v.  Sears,   18  Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,748,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93,  4  Pa.  L.  J.  443;  Wells  v. 
Gill,   29   Fed.   Cas.  No.   17,394,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  89,  2  Off.  Gaz.  590. 

34.  Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Anthracite  Tel. 
Co.,  113  Fed.  834. 

Mere  failure  to  appeal  does  not  show  col- 
lusion.    Doig  v.  Morgan  Mach.  Co.,  89  Fed. 


489    [affirmed  in  91   Fed.   1001,  33  C.   C.  A. 
683]. 

Where  the  merits  were  considered  by  the 
court,  a  collusive  decree  set  aside  may  still 
have  weight.  A.  B.  Dick  Co.  v.  Wichelman, 
74  Fed.  799. 

35.  National  Enameling  Co.  v.  New  Eng- 
land Enameling  Co.,  123  Fed.  436;  American 
Coat  Pad  Co.  v.  Phoenix  Pad  Co.,  113  Fed.  629, 
51  C.  C.  A.  339;  American  Electrical  Novelty 
Co.  v.  Newgold,  99  Fed.  567;  Wilson  v.  Con- 
solidated Store-Service  Co.,  88   Fed.  286,  31 
C.  C.  A.  533;  Societe  Anonyme,  etc.  v.  Allen, 
84  Fed.   812;    Bowers   Dredging  Co.  v.  New 
York    Dredging    Co.,    77    Fed.    980;    Fenton 
Metallic    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Chase,    73    Fed-  831; 
Covert    i>.    Travers,    70    Fed.    788;    De    Ver 
Warner  v.  Bassett,   7   Fed.  468,    19   Blatchf. 
145;  Hayes  v.  Leton,  5  Fed.  521;  Mannie  v. 
Everett,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,039;  Orr  v.  Little- 
field,   18  Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,590,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.   323,   1   Woodb.  &  M.   13    (holding  that 
judgment  without  contest  has  weight  where 
there  is  no  collusion)  ;   Potter  v.  Fuller,   19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,327,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  251; 
Spring  v.  Domestic  Sewing-Mach.  Co.,  22  Fed. 
Cas.   No.    13,258,   4   Ban.   &  A.   427,    16   Off. 
Gaz.  721,  2  N.  J.  L.  J.  274. 

36.  Refused  where  conflicting  prior  adjudi- 
cations.   Eldred  v.  Breitwieser,  132  Fed.  251; 
Wilgus  v.  Van  Sickle,  99  Fed.  443;  Allen  v. 
Sprague,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  238,  1  Blatchf.  567, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  388.     In  case  of  conflict  the 
decision  in  the  same  circuit  controls.     Pull- 
man's Palace-Car   Co.  v.  Wagner  Palace-Car 
Co.,   44   Fed.    764.     Later   decision   controls. 
Pelser  v.  Geise,  87  Fed.  869.     In  case  of  con- 
flict the  best  considered  will  be  followed.    Pel- 
zer   v.   Newhall,    93    Fed.    684;    Philadelphia 
Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Edison  Electric  Light  Co., 
65   Fed.  551,   13  C.  C.  A.  40;   Van  Hook  v. 
Wood,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,855. 

37.  Westinghouse     Electric,     etc.,     Co.     v. 
American  Transformer  Co.,  121  Fed.  560  [af- 
firmed in  130  Fed.  550] ;  Whippany  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  United  Indurated  Fibre  Co.,  87  Fed.  215, 
30   C.    C.   A.    615    [reversing   83   Fed.   485]; 
Sawyer  Spindle  Co.  v.  Turner,  55  Fed.  979; 
Carey  v.  Miller,  34  Fed.  392;  Odorless  Exca- 
vating Co.  v.  Lanman,  12  Fed.  788,  4  Woods 
129.     But  see  Duff  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Norton,   92 
Fed.  921. 

38.  Palmer  v.  Mills,   57   Fed.   221;    West- 
inghouse Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Carpenter,  32  Fed. 
545;  Sessions  v.  Romadka,  21  Fed.  124;  Ely 
v.   Monson,  etc.,   Mfg.   Co.,   8   Fed.   Cas.   No. 

[XIII,  C,  ll,b,  (v)] 


1014     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


(vi)  INDEMNITY  BOND.  In  place  of  an  injunction  defendant  may  be  required 
to  give  bond  conditioned  for  the  payment  of  all  damages  awarded.89  Likewise 
where  an  injunction  is  granted  the  complainant  may  be  required  to  give  bond  to 
indemnify  defendant.40  Whether  such  bond  shall  be  required  of  complainant 
depends  upon  circumstances.41 

(vn)  APPLICATION  AND  PROCEEDINGS  THEREON.  Motion  for  preliminary 
injunction  must  be  made,  supported  by  the  affidavits  of  the  complainant  and  others 
to  all  facts  not  shown  in  the  bill  of  complaint  necessary  to  establish  his  right.42 


4,431,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  64;  Hodge  v.  Hudson 
River  R.  Co.,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,560,  6 
Blatchf.  165;  Rogers  v.  Abbot,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,004,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  465,  4  Wash. 
514;  Serrell  v.  Collins,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,671,  4  Blatchf.  61;  Smith  v.  Sharp's  Rifle 
Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,106,  3  Blatchf. 
545;  Sykes  v.  Manhattan  Elevator,  etc.,  Co., 
23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,710,  6  Blatchf.  496; 
Tilghman  v.  Mitchell,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,042, 
9  Blatchf.  18,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  615  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  19  Wall.  287,  22  L.  ed. 
125]. 

Injunction  refused  but  defendant  ordered 
to  give  security  and  keep  an  account  see 
Marvel  Co.  v.  Pearl,  114  Fed.  946;  Macbeth 
V.  Lippencott  Glass  Co.,  54  Fed.  167;  Eagle 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chamberlain  Plow  Co.,  36  Fed. 
905;  American  Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  At- 
lantic Milling  Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  305,  3 
Ban.  &  A.  168,  4  Dill.  100;  Blake  v.  Green- 
wood Cemetery,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,497,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  112,  14  Blatchf.  342,  13  Off.  Gaz.  1046; 
Blake  v.  Robertson,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,500,  11 
Blatchf.  237,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  509;  Stain- 
thorp  v.  Humiston,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,280, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  311. 

For  cases  in  which  modification  of  the  in- 
junction was  refused  see  Consolidated  Rol- 
ler-Mill Co.  v.  Coombs,  39  Fed.  803;  Munson 
V.  New  York,  19  Fed.  313. 

39.  Karfiol  v.  Rothner,  151  Fed.  777;  Na- 
tional Enameling  Co.  v.  New  England  Enam- 
eling Co.,  123  Fed.  436;  Marvel  Co.  V.  Pearl, 
114  Fed.  946;  Seiler  v.  Fuller,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co., 
102  Fed.  344,  42  C.  C.  A.  386;  National  Cash- 
Register  Co.  v.  Navy  Cash-Register  Co.,  99 
Fed.  565;  Duplex  Printing-Press  Co.  v.  Camp- 
bell Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.,  69  Fed.  250,  16 
C.  C.  A.  220;  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v. 
Columbia  Incandescent  Lamp  Co.,  56  Fed. 
496;  Eastern  Paper-Bag  Co.  v.  Nixon,  35 
Fed.  752;  Hoe  v.  Knap,  27  Fed.  204;  New 
York  Belting,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Magowan,  23  Fed. 
596;  Greenwood  v.  Bracher,  1  Fed.  856;  Gil- 
bert, etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bussing,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,416,  1  Ban.  &  A.  621,  12  Blatchf.  426, 
8  Off.  Gaz.  144;  Goodyear  v.  Hills,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,57  la,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  134;  Howe 
v.  Morton,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,769,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  586;  Irwin  v.  McRoberts,  13  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,085,  4  Ban.  &  A.  411,  16  Off.  Gaz.  853; 
Morris  v.  Shelbourne,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,836, 
8  Blatchf.  266,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  377. 

Computation  of  amount  of  bond. —  In  fix- 
ing the  amount  of  a  bond  required  of  defend- 
ant in  a  suit  for  infringement  of  patents  as 
a  condition  to  the  refusing  of  a  preliminary 
injunction,  the  amount  of  the  profits  made 
by  him  from  the  alleged  infringement  affords 

[XIII,  C,  11,  b,  (vi)] 


the  only  approximate  basis  for  computation. 
Karfiol  V.  Rothner,  151  Fed.  779. 

Security  required  only  where  showing  is 
such  as  would  justify  injunction  see  Ameri- 
can Middlings  Purifier  Co.  v.  Atlantic  Mill- 
ing Co.,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  305,  3  Ban.  &  A.  168, 
4  Dill.  100. 

Where  doubt,  bond  required  in  place  of  in- 
junction.—  Consolidated  Rubber  Tire  Co.  v. 
Finley  Rubber  Tire  Co.,  106  Fed.  175. 

Bond  not  accepted  in  a  clear  case  in  place 
of  injunction  see  Electric  Storage  Battery 
Co.  v.  Buffalo  Electric  Carriage  Co.,  117  Fed. 
314;  Campbell  Printing-Press  Co.  v.  Prieth, 
77  Fed.  976;  Carter  v.  Wollschlaeger,  53  Fed. 
573;  Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Carpen- 
ter, 32  Fed.  545;  McWilliams  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Bhmdell,  11  Fed.  419;  Conover  v.  Mers,  6 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,123,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  386; 
Ely  v.  Monson,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,431,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  64 ;  Morse  v.  O'Reilly, 
17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,859;  Tracy  v.  Torrey,  24 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,127,  2  Blatchf.  275.  But  see 
Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Burton  Stock- 
Car  Co.,  77  Fed.  301,  23  C.  C.  A.  174,  holding 
that  bond  may  be  accepted  in  place  of  in- 
junction even  in  a  clear  case  where  great  in- 
jury to  defendant. 

40.  Consolidated    Electric    Storage    Co.    v. 
Accumulator    Co.,   55    Fed.   485,   5   C.    C.   A. 
202  [affirming  53  Fed.  796]  ;  Shelly  v.  Bran- 
nan,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,751,  2  Biss.  315,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  198. 

Complainant  is  liable  for  injury  due  to  in- 
junction where  final  judgment  against  him. 
National  Phonograph  Co.  v.  American  Graph- 
ophone  Co.,  136  Fed.  231;  Tobey  Furniture 
Co.  v.  Colby,  35  Fed.  592. 

41.  Pasteur    Chamber  land    Filter     Co.    v. 
Funk,  52  Fed.   146;   Van  Hook  v.  Wood,  28 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,855. 

42.  Palmer  Pneumatic  Tire  Co.  v.  Newton 
Rubber  Works,  73  Fed.  218;  American  Dia- 
mond Rock  Boring  Co.  v.  Sullivan  Mach.  Co., 
1   Fed.   Cas.  No.   298,   2   Ban.  &  A.   552,   14 
Blatchf.  119;  Beane  v.  Orr,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,176,    2   Ban.    &   A.    176,   9   Off.    Gaz.    255; 
Gutta  Percha,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Goodyear  Rub- 
ber Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,879,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
212,  3  Sawy.  542;   Stevens  v.  Felt,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,397 ;  Sullivan  v.  Redfield,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.    13,597,   1   Paine  441,   1   Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  477;   Young  v.  Lippman,   30  Fed.   Cas. 
No.  18,160,  9  Blatchf.  277,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
230,  2  Off.  Gaz.  249,  342. 

Production  of  documents. —  Documents  re- 
ferred to  should  be  produced.  Siemens-Lun- 
gren  Co.  v.  Hatch,  47  Fed.  64 ;  National  Typo- 
graphic Co.  v.  New  York  Typograph  Co.,  46 
Fed.  114. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1015 


Defendant  may  file  counter  affidavits,43  and  in  some  jurisdictions  the  complainant 
may  file  rebutting  affidavits.44 

\vui)  CONSIDERATION  AND  JUDGMENT  ON  MOTION.  On  motion  for  prelim- 
inary injunction  the  court  will  not  undertake  to  determine  disputed  and  difficult 
questions  of  law  or  fact,45  nor  pass  upon  the  credibility  of  witnesses.46  It  will, 
however,  consider  all  pertinent  facts  which  are  clearly  shown,47  and  will  make 
such  order  as  the  equities  of  the  case  demand.48 

(ix)  MODIFYING  OR  DISSOLVING.  The  dissolution  or  modification  of  an 
injunction  is  a  matter  resting  in  the  sound  discretion  of  the  court.49 


Affidavit  of  third  parties  see  Lombard  y. 
Stillwell,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,472. 

The  court  may  take  judicial  notice  of  mat- 
ters of  common  knowledge  see  Adams,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Wire-Goods  Co.,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  72,  3  Ban.  &  A.  77,  12  Off.  Gaz. 
940. 

English  practice  application  must  make 
out  a  case  and  include  the  allegation  that 
the  complainant  believes  himself  to  be  the 
first  inventor.  Whitton  v.  Jennings,  1  Dr.  & 
Sm.  110,  6  Jur.  N.  S.  164,  1  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
395,  62  Eng.  Reprint  320;  Hill  v.  Thompson, 
Holt  N.  P.  636,  3  E.  C.  L.  249,  3  Meriv. 
622,  17  Rev.  Rep.  156,  36  Eng.  Reprint  239, 
2  Moore  C.  P.  424,  8  Taunt.  375,  20  Rev. 
Rep.  488,  4  E.  C.  L.  190;  Mayer  v.  Spence, 
1  Johns.  &  H.  87,  6  Jur.  N.  S.  672,  8  Wkly. 
Rep.  559,  70  Eng.  Reprint  673;  Gardner  v. 
Broadbent,  2  Jur.  N.  S.  1041,  4  Wkly.  Rep. 
767;  Sturz  v.  De  la  Rue,  7  L.  J.  Ch.  O.  S. 
47,  5  Russ.  322,  29  Rev.  Rep.  24,  5  Eng.  Ch. 
322,  38  Eng.  Reprint  1048. 

43.  Brill    v.    Peckham    Motor    Truck,    etc., 
Co.,  189  U.  S.  57,  23  S.  Ct.  562,  47  L.  ed.  706; 
Robinson    v.    Randolph,    20    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
11,962,    4    Ban.    &    A.    163;    Wickershaff    V. 
Jones,    29    Fed.    Cas.   No.    17,609;    Young   v. 
Lippman,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,160,  9  Blatchf. 
277,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  230,  2  Off.  Gaz.  249, 
342. 

Answer  as  an  affidavit  on  motion  see  Good- 
year v.  Mullee,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,579,  3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  420;  Parker  v.  Sears,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,748,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93. 

Answer  insufficient  as  disclaimer  of  intent 
to  use  or  sell  machines  embodying  features 
of  the  patent  see  Deere,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dowagiac 
Mfg.  Co.,  153  Fed.  177,  82  C.  C.  A.  351. 

Admissions  by  answer  see  Deere,  etc.,  Co. 
{v.  Dowagiac  Mfg.  Co.,  153  Fed.  177,  82  C.  C. 
A.  351. 

Estoppel  by  averments  in  answer  see  Morse 
Fountain-Pen  Co.  v.  Esterbrook  Steel-Pen 
Mfg.  Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,862,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  515. 

44.  Brill    v.    Peckham   Motor   Truck,    etc., 
Co.,  189  U.  S.  57,  23  S.  Ct.  562,  47  L.  ed. 
706;    Norton   v.   Eagle   Automatic   Can    Co., 
57  Fed.  929;  Goodyear  v.  Mullee,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    5,579,    3    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    420;    Union 
Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Binney,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   14,387,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   166;   Gibbs  v. 
Cole,    Dick.    64,    21    Eng.    Reprint    192,    3 
P.  Wms.  255,  24  Eng.  Reprint  1051. 

45.  Seal  v.  Beach,  113  Fed.  831;   Consoli- 
dated   Fastener    Co.    v.    Columbian   Fastener 
Co.,  73  Fed.  828;  American  Nicholson  Pave- 
ment Co.  v.  Elizabeth,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  312, 


4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  189 ;  Bailey  Wringing  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Adams,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  752,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  96,  5  Reporter  102;  Crowell  v.  Harlow, 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,444,  3  Ban.  &  A.  478,  18 
Off.  Gaz.  466;  Parker  v.  Sears,  18  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   10,748,   1   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  93;   Potter  v. 
Whitney,    19    Fed.   Cas.   No.    11,341,   3   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  77,  1  Lowell  87;  Sickels  v.  Youngs, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   12,838,  3  Blatchf.  293. 

Evidence  insufficient  to  warrant  granting 
of  injunction  see  Mathews  Gravity  Carrier 
Co.  v.  Lister,  154  Fed.  490;  Marconi  Wire- 
less Tel  Co.  v.  American  De  Forest  Wireless 
Tel.  Co.,  154  Fed.  74;  Hall  Signal  Co.  v. 
General  R.  Signal  Co.,  153  Fed.  907,  82 
C.  C.  A.  653. 

46.  Sessions    v.    Gould,    48    Fed.    855    [af- 
firmed in  63   Fed.    1001,    11    C.   C.  A.   546]  ; 
Cooper  v.  Mattheys,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,200,  5 
Pa.  L.  J.  38. 

47.  Westinghouse     Electric,     etc.,     Co.     v. 
Stanley    Electric    Mfg.    Co.,    117    Fed.    309; 
Irwin   v.   Dane,    13    Fed.    Cas.   No.    7,081,    2 
Biss.    442,    4    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    359 ;    Morse 
Fountain-Pen    Co.    v.    Esterbrook    Steel-Pen 
Mfg.  Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,862,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  515;  Sickels  v.  Youngs,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,838,    3    Blatchf.    293;    Union    Paper-Bag- 
Mach.  Co.  v.  Binney,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,387, 

5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  166. 

Verbal  admissions  by  defendant  see  Jonea 
v.  Merrill,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,481,  8  Off. 
Gaz.  401;  Morse  Fountain-Pen  Co.  v.  Ester- 
brook  Steel-Pen  Mfg.  Co.,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,862,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  515. 

Where  case  depends  on  written  instruments 
court  decides.  Clum  v.  Brewer,  5  Fed.  Cas, 
No.  2,909,  2  Curt.  506. 

Patent  not  in  record  not  considered  see 
Drainage  Constr.  Co.  v.  Englewood  Sewer 
Co.,  67  Fed.  141. 

Parties  cannot  so  frame  issues  as  to  pre- 
vent decision  as  to  patentability  or  as  to 
scope  of  claims.  Millard  v.  Chase,  108  Fed. 
399,  47  C.  C.  A.  429. 

48.  Antisdel  v.  Chicago  Hotel  Cabinet  Co., 
89  Fed.  308,  32  C.  C.  A.  216;  American  Mid- 
dlings Purifier  Co.  v.  Vail,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
308,  4  Ban.  &  A.  1,  15  Blatchf.  315;  Atlantic- 
Giant-Powder  Co.   v.  Goodyear,  2   Fed.   Cas. 
No.  623,  3  Ban.  &  A.   161,  13  Off.  Gaz.  45; 
Burr    v.    Smith,    4    Fed.    Cas.    No.    2,196; 
Parkhurst    v.    Kinsman,    18    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
10,760,  2  Blatchf.   78,   Fish.  Pat.  Rep.   180; 
Woodworth    v.    Edwards,    30    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
18,014,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  603,  3  Woodb.  &  M. 
524. 

49.  Barnard  v.  Gibson,  7  How.  (U.  S.)  650, 
12  L.  ed.  857;  Brown  v.  Deere,  6  Fed.  487,  2 

[XIII,  C,  11,  b,  (ix)] 


1016     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


c.  Permanent  Injunction.     The  right  to  a  permanent  injunction  ordinarily 
exists  where  judgment  is  in  favor  of  the  complainant,50  but  there  may  be  special 
circumstances  which  will  prevent  its  issuance.51 

d.  Violation  and  Punishment  —  (i)  WRIT  OB  MANDATE  VIOLATED.    The  writ 
of  injunction  cannot  be  the  foundation  for  an  attachment  for  contempt  against 


McCrary  425;  Orr  v.  Badger,  18  Fed.  Gas. 
No.  10,587,  Brunn.  Col.  Cas.  536;  Woodworth 
v.  Rogers,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,018,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  625,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  L35. 

That  injunction  will  not  be  dissolved  on 
coming  in  of  answer  merely  denying  equity 
of  the  bill  see  Orr  v.  Littlefield,  18  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  10,590,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  No.  323,  1 
Woodb.  &  M.  13;  Orr  v.  Merrill,  18  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,591,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  331,  1 
Woodb.  &  M.  376. 

Must  overcome  equity  and  evidence  see 
Sparkman  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,208,  1  Blatchf.  205,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  110; 
Woodworth  v.  Rogers,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,018,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  625,  3  Woodb.  &  M. 
135. 

Motion  to  dissolve  heard  upon  the  same 
evidence  or  that  which  should  have  been 
produced  see  National  School  Furniture  Co. 
v.  Paton,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,050,  4  Ban. 
&  A.  432,  16  Blatchf.  563;  Woodworth  v. 
Rogers,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,018,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  625,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  135. 

Evidence  taken  too  late  on  the  merits  can- 
not be  presented  on  motion  to  dissolve.  Union 
Paper-Bag  Mach.  Co.  v.  Newell,  24  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  14,389,  1  Ban.  &  A.  113,  11  Blatchf.  549, 

5  Off.  Gaz.  459. 

Cases  in  which  motion  to  dissolve  denied 
see  Holmes  Electric  Protective  Co.  v.  Metro- 
politan Burglar  Alarm  Co.,  31  Fed.  562; 
Bassett  v.  Malone,  11  Fed.  801;  Richardson 
v.  Croft,  11  Fed.  800;  Perry  v.  Littlefield, 
2  Fed.  464;  Consolidated  Fruit- Jar  Co.  v. 
Whitney,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,132,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
356,  10  Phila.  (Pa.)  268;  Hussey  v.  Whitely, 
12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,950,  1  Bond  407,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  120;  Potter  v.  Mack,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,331,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  428;  Thompson 
v.  Barry,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,942,  2  Wkly. 
Notes  Cas.  (Pa.)  100;  Woodworth  v.  Hall, 
30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,017,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
517,  1  Woodb.  &  M.  389;  Woodworth  v. 
Rogers,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,018,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  625,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  135. 

Cases  in  which  motion  to  dissolve  granted 
see  Cary  v.  Domestic  Spring-Bed  Co.,  26  Fed. 
38;  Goodyear  v.  Bourn,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,561,  3  Blatchf.  266;  Wilson  v.  Barnum,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,787,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  635, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  749,  1  Wall.  Jr.  347;  Wood- 
worth  v.  Edwards,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,014, 
2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  610,  3  Woodb.  &  M.  120. 

50.  Horton  v.  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
63  Fed.  897;  Roemer  v.  Neumann,  26  Fed. 
332;  Avery  v.  Wilson,  20  Fed.  856;  Potter  v. 
Mack,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,331,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  428;  Rumford  Chemical  Works  v. 
Hecker,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,134,  2  Ban. 

6  A.   386,   11   Off.  Gaz.   330;   Nunn  V.   D' Al- 
buquerque,   34    Beav.    595,    55    Eng.   Reprint 
765. 

[XIII,  C,  11,  e] 


Although  damages  granted  were  only 
nominal,  injunction  may  be  granted.  Du 
Bois  v.  Kirk,  158  U.  S.  58,  15  S.  Ct.  729,  39 
L.  ed.  895  [affirming  33  Fed.  252]. 

Not  refused  because  defendant  solvent  see 
Bement  v.  National  Harrow  Co.,  186  U.  S. 
70,  22  S.  Ct.  747,  46  L.  ed.  1058;  Grant  v. 
Raymond,  6  Pet.  (U.  S.)  218,  8  L.  ed.  376; 
General  Electric  Co.  v.  Wise,  119  Fed.  922. 

Not  refused  because  defendant  quits  in- 
fringing see  Western  Electric  Co.  v.  Capital 
Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  86  Fed.  769;  Matthews,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  National  Brass,  etc.,  Works,  71 
Fed.  518;  White  v.  Walbridge,  46  Fed.  526; 
Kane  v.  Huggins  Cracker,  etc.,  Co.,  44  Fed. 
287;  Facer  v.  Midvale  Steel-Works,  38  Fed. 
231;  Bullock  Printing-Press  Co.  v.  Jones, 

4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,132,  3  Ban.  &  A.  195,   13 
Off.  Gaz.  124. 

Granted  although  great  damage  to  defend- 
ant see  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  United 
Electric  Light,  etc.,  Co.,  58  Fed.  572,  7  C.  C. 
A.  375  [affirming  57  Fed.  642]. 

Granted  although  patent  about  to  expire 
see  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  Western  Tel. 
Constr.  Co.,  58  Fed.  410;  American  Bell  Tel. 
Co.  v.  Brown,  Tel.,  etc.,  Co.,  58  Fed.  409. 

Granted  without  verdict  of  jury  see  Bu- 
chanan v.  Rowland,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,074, 

5  Blatchf.  151,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  341;  Good- 
year v.  Day,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,569,  2  Wall. 
Jr.  283. 

Against  whom  operative. —  Permanent  in- 
junction goes  against  all  connected  with  the 
infringement.  National  Mechanical  Directory 
Co.  v.  Polk,  121  Fed.  742,  58  C.  C.  A.  24. 

That  permanent  injunction  means  for  the 
life  of  the  patent  see  De  Florez  v.  Raynolds, 
8  Fed.  434,  17  Blatchf.  436. 

Goods  made  before  expiration  of  patent. — 
Injunction  continues  after  expiration  of  pat- 
ent as  to  goods  made  before.  American  Dia- 
mond Rock-Boring  Co.  v.  Rutland  Marble 
Co.,  2  Fed.  356,  18  Blatchf.  146.  Contra, 
Westinghouse  v.  Carpenter,  43  Fed.  894. 

Cases  in  which  injunction  granted  see  Na- 
tional Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elsas,  65 
Fed.  1001;  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  Globe 
Tel.  Co.,  31  Fed.  729,  24  Blatchf.  522;  Odell 
v.  Stout,  22  Fed.  159;  Weeks  v.  Buffalo  Scale 
Co.,  11  Fed.  901;  Merriam  v.  Smith,  11  Fed. 
588;  Pentlarge  v.  Beesten,  1  Fed.  862,  18 
Blatchf.  38;  Potter  v.  Whitney,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,341,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  77,  1  Lowell  87. 

51.  Marden  v.  Campbell  Printing-Press, 
etc.,  Co.,  79  Fed.  653,  25  C.  C.  A.  142; 
Many  v.  Sizer,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,057,  I 
Fish*  Pat.  Cas.  31. 

Permanent  injunction  refused  where  not 
necessary  and  allowance  injurious  to  public. 
—  Campbell  Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Man- 
hattan R.  Co.,  49  Fed.  930;  Ballard  v.  Pitts- 
burg,  12  Fed.  783;  Bliss  v.  Brooklyn,  3 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1017 


any  person,  except  perhaps  a  defendant  served  with  the  bill  of  complaint,  where 
it  refers  merely  to  the  bill  for  a  description  of  the  thing  enjoined.52 

(n)  KNOWLEDGE  OR  NOTICE.  According  to  tiie  modern  practice,  actual  serv- 
ice of  an  order  of  injunction  upon  the  person  sought  to  be  restrained  from  infring- 
ing a  patent  is  not  requisite  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  proceeding  against  him  for 
contempt,53  actual  notice  of  such  order  of  injunction  being  deemed  sufficient.54 

(in)  WHO  LIABLE.  Defendants  as  individuals  are  in  contempt  if  they  organ- 
ize a  company  and  continue  infringement,55  and  it  is  the  duty  of  a  defendant 
enjoined  from  making  or  selling  a  patented  article  to  take  such  steps  as  will  pre- 
vent violation  of  the  injunction  by  employees,  and  a  line  will  be  imposed  for  con- 
tempt where  the  injunction  is  violated  by  employees.56  One  who  knowingly 
assists  another  in  violating  an  injunction  is  guilty  of  contempt.57  An  officer  of 
defendant  corporation  who  continues  infringement  individually  after  injunction  is 
guilty  of  contempt.58  A  person  pending  suit  is  riot  bound  to  obey  an  injunction 
not  directed  to  him.59 

(iv)  ACTS  OR  CONDUCT  CONSTITUTING  VIOLATION.  Although  the  command 
of  an  injunction  against  the  infringement  of  a  patent  must  be  explicitly  obeyed, 
yet  it  is  the  spirit  and  not  the  letter  of  the  injunction  which  must  be  obeyed  ;  w 
hence,  no  subterfuge  amounting  to  a  substantial  violation  of  the  injunction  will 
be  allowed  to  succeed  merely  because  not  contrary  to  the  letter  of  the  prohibitory 
clause.61  Advertising  for  sale  articles  which  have  been  adjudged  infringements 


Fed.  Gas.  No.   1,544,  8  Blatchf.  533,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  596. 

52.  Whipple  v.   Hutchinson,   29   Fed.   Cas. 
No.  17,517,  4  Blatchf.  190. 

53.  Christensen   Engineering   Co.   v.   West- 
inghouse    Air-Brake    Co.,    135    Fed.    774,    68 
C.  C.  A.  476. 

54.  Christensen   Engineering   Co.   v.   West- 
inghouse    Air-Brake    Co.,    135    Fed.    774,    68 
C.   C.  A.  476.     See  also  Dowagiac  Mfg.   Co. 
v.  Minnesota  Moline  Plow  Co.,  124  Fed.  736 
[affirmed  in  129  Fed.  1005,  64  C.  C.  A.  122]. 

Injunction  ordered  but  not  issued. —  The 
rule  is  that  where  an  injunction  against  the 
infringement  of  a  patent  has  been  ordered, 
a  party  who,  having  knowledge  of  that  order, 
deliberately  violates  the  injunction  ordered, 
although  not  yet  issued,  is  guilty  of  con- 
tempt of  court.  Dowagiac  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Minne- 
sota Moline  Plow  Co.,  124  Fed.  736  [affirmed 
in  129  Fed.  1005,  64  C.  C.  A.  122],  holding, 
however,  that,  in  order  to  convict  a  person 
of  contempt  under  such  circumstances,  it 
must  be  shown  clearly  that  he  had  knowledge 
of  the  order  of  the  injunction  in  such  a  way 
that  it  can  be  held  that  he  understood  it, 
and  with  that  knowledge  committed  wilful 
violation  of  the  order. 

55.  Diamond  Drill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelley,  130 
Fed.  893 ;  Iowa  Barb  Steel-Wire  Co.  v.  South- 
ern Barbed- Wire  Co.,  30  Fed.  123. 

56.  Westinghouse  Air  Brake  Co.  v.  Chris- 
tensen Engineering  Co.,  121  Fed.  562;  Mundy 
v.  Lidgerwood  Mfg.  Co.  34  Fed.  541 ;  Phillips 
v.  Detroit,   19  Fed.   Cas.  No.   11,101,   3  Ban. 
&  A.  150,  2  Flipp.  92,  16  Off.  Gaz.  627;  Pot- 
ter v.  Muller,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,333,  1  Bond 
601,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  631. 

57.  Hamilton  v.  Diamond  Drill,  etc.,  Co., 
137  Fed.  417,  69  C.  C.  A.  532;  Diamond  Drill, 
etc.,   Co.  v.  Kelley,    132   Fed.   978,    130   Fed. 
893;  Welsbach  Light  Co.  v.  Daylight  Incan- 
descent Gaslight  Co.,  97  Fed.  950;  Goodyear 


v.  Mullee,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,577,  5  Blatchf. 
429,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  209. 

Illustrations.— One  who  with  knowledge  of 
an  injunction  enjoining  certain  persons  from 
infringement  takes  over  their  business  and 
continues  it  in  collusion  with  them  is  guilty 
of  contempt.  Hamilton  v.  Diamond  Drill, 
etc.,  Co.,  137  Fed.  417,  69  C.  C.  A.  532;  Dia- 
mond Drill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelley,  132  Fed.  978, 
130  Fed.  893.  Assisting  another  inf ringer  in 
a  suit  contesting  the  validity  of  the  patent 
is  contempt.  Bate  Refrigerating  Co.  v.  Gil- 
lett,  30  Fed.  683. 

58.  Janney  v.  Pancoast  International  Ven- 
tilator Co.,  124  Fed.  972;   Stahl  v.  Ertel,  62 
Fed.  920;  Poppenhusen  v.  Falke,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,279,  4  Blatchf.  493,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
181;    Wetherill  v.  New  Jersey  Zinc   Co.,   29 
Fed.    Cas.   No.    17,463,    1    Ban.   &   A.    105,   5 
Off.  Gaz.  460. 

A  person  acting  only  officially  is  not  liable. 
Phillips  v.  Detroit,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,101, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  150,  2  Flipp.  92,  16  Off.  Gaz. 
627. 

59.  Bate   Refrigerating   Co.   v.   Gillett,    30 
Fed.  685. 

60.  Bate   Refrigerating   Co.    v.   Gillett,    30 
Fed.  683. 

61.  Bate   Refrigerating   Co.   v.   Gillett,    30 
Fed.    683;    Burr   v.    Kimbark,   29    Fed.    428; 
Colgate  t'.    Gold,   etc.,   Tel.   Co.,   6   Fed.    Cas. 
No.  2,992,  4  Ban.  &  A.  559,  17  Off.  Gaz.  193; 
Craig   t;.    Fisher,    6    Fed.    Cas.   No.    3,332,    2 
Sawy.  345;  Hamilton  v.  Simons,  11  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,991,  5  Biss.  77;  Phillips  v.  Detroit,  19 
Fed.    Cas.   No.    11,101,   3    Ban.   &  A.    150,   2 
Flipp.  92,  16  Off.  Gaz.  627;  Potter  v.  Muller, 
19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,333,  1  Bond  601,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  631.    And  see  Victor  Talking  Mach. 
Co.  v.  Leeds,  etc.,  Co.,  150  Fed.  147. 

Illustrations. —  Where  the  principle  in- 
volved in  a  patent  is  the  point  in  issue  in  a 
suit  to  restrain  its  infringement,  defendant 

[XIII,  C,  11,  d,  (iv)] 


1018     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


of  complainant's  patent,  and  the  sale  of  which  has  been  enjoined,  does  not  in 
itself  constitute  a  breach  of  the  injunction  ;63  but  advertising  the  articles  enjoined, 
in  defiance  of  the  precise  terms  of  the  injunction,  is  strong  evidence  of  the  violation 
of  the  injunction,  and  requires  positive  proof  on  the  part  of  defendant  to  the  con- 
trary.63 An  injunction  against  the  sale  of  an  infringing  article  is  violated  by  the 
sale  of  such  article  outside  of  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the  court  granting  the 
injunction,  whether  the  article  was  sent  within  such  jurisdiction  or  not.64 

(v)  DEFENSES.  The  fact  that  the  writ  was  erroneously  granted  furnishes  no 
excuse  for  its  violation,65  the  remedy  in  such  case  being  by  appeal  or  writ  of 
error.66  Temptation  due  to  financial  straits  is  no  excuse  for  violation  of  an  injunc- 
tion,67 nor  is  the  advice  of  counsel,63  nor, good  faith  or  absence  of  intention  to 
infringe,69  nor  a  misnomer  in  the  injunction.70  So  the  fact  that  the  infringing 
machine  is  made  according  to  a  junior  patent  is  no  excuse.71  That  the  injunction 
was  granted  upon  a  patent  which  has  since  been  materially  altered  by  disclaimer 
constitutes  a  defense  to  the  proceeding.72  And  an  injunction  against  the  infringe- 
ment of  a  patent  for  an  invention  consisting  of  the  combination  of  known  appli- 
ances is  not  violated  by  using  the  combination  after  the  expiration  of  the  patent.73 

(vi)  PROCEEDINGS  TO  PUNISH —  (A)  Notice.  Generally  the  rule  obtains  that, 
before  a  party  who  has  violated  an  injunction  against  infringing  a  patent  can  be 
punished  for  contempt,  it  must  appear  that  he  has  been  served  with  notice  of  the 
proceedings  therefor.74 


commits  a  breach  of  a  preliminary  injunction 
and  is  punishable  for  contempt  where,  for 
the  purpose  of  evading  the  injunction,  he 
continues  to  manufacture  articles  involving 
the  same  principle,  with  but  slight  modi- 
fications of  structure.  Burr  v.  Kimbark,  29 
Fed.  428.  Where  a  party  who  has  been  en- 
joined from  infringing  a  patent  by  manu- 
facturing or  selling  the  infringing  article 
continues  to  sell  as  the  agent  of  another,  he 
is  guilty  of  contempt,  and  is  liable  to  attach- 
ment. Potter  v.  Muller,  19  Fed.  Gas.  No. 
11,333,  1  Bond  601,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Gas.  631. 

62.  Dowagiac  Mfg.   Co.   v.  Minnesota  Mo- 
line  Plow  Co.,   124  Fed.  736.    See  also  Allis 
v.  Stowell,  19  Off.  Gaz.  727. 

63.  Stahl  v.  Ertel,  62  Fed.  920. 

64.  Macauley  v.  White  Sewing  Mach.  Co., 
9  Fed.  698. 

Sending  infringing  article  to  foreign  coun- 
try or  selling  it  there. — A  sale  in  Canada,  to 
be  there  used,  of  articles  patented  by  letters 
patent  of  the  United  States,  Canada  being  a 
territory  in  which  the  patentee  had  no  ex- 
clusive right,  cannot  be  regarded  as  in  con- 
tempt of  an  injunction  not  in  future  to  make 
or  sell  in  violation  of  the  patent.  Gould  v. 
Sessions,  67  Fed.  163,  14  C.  C.  A.  366.  And 
the  making  and  selling  of  a  single  element 
of  a  patented  combination,  with  the  purpose 
and  expectation  that  such  element  should  be 
sent  to  a  foreign  country,  and  be  there  used 
in  combination  with  other  elements,  or  in 
the  practice  of  a  method  covered  by  the 
patent,  is  not  contributory  infringement, 
inasmuch  as  there  was  no  intent  that  the 
elements  should  be  put  to  an  infringing  use, 
the  protection  of  the  patent  not  extending 
beyond,  the  limits  of  the  United  States.  Bul- 
lock Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Westinghouse,  etc., 
Co.,  129  Fed.  105,  63  C.  C.  A.  607. 

65.  Roener  v.  Newman,  19  Fed.  98;  Craig 
V.   Fisher,   6    Fed.    Cas.   No.    3,332,   2   Sawy. 

[XIII,  C,  11,  d,  (iv)] 


345;  Phillips  v.  Detroit,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,101,  3  Ban.  &  A.  150,  2  Flipp.  92,  16  Off. 
Gaz.  627;  Valentine  v.  Reynolds,  28  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  16,813;  Whipple  v.  Hutchinson,  2y  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,517,  4  Blatchf.  190. 

66.  Craig  v.  Fisher,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,332, 
2  Sawy.  345. 

67.  A.    B.    Dick    Co.    v.    Henry,    88    Fed. 
80. 

68.  Calculagraph  Co.  v.  Wilson,    136  Fed. 
196;     Paxton     v.     Brinton,     126     Fed.     542; 
Bowers  v.   Pacific  Coast  Dredging,  etc.,  Co., 
99  Fed.  745;   Bate  Refrigerating  Co.  v.  Gil- 
lett,  30  Fed.  683;  Burr  v.  Kimbark,  29  Fed. 
428.     Contra,    Goss    Printing    Press    Co.    v. 
Scott,  134  Fed.  880;  Hamilton  v.  Simons,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,991,  5  Biss.  77. 

Judgment  of  court. —  Defendant  should  get 
the  judgment  of  the  court  whether  changes 
made  avoid  infringement.  Bowers  v.  Pacific 
Coast  Dredging,  etc.,  Co.,  99  Fed.  745; 
Hamilton  v.  Simons,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,991, 
5  Biss.  77. 

69.  Bate   Refrigerating    Co.   v.   Gillett,    30 
Fed.  683.    And  see  Robinson  v.  S.  &  B.  Led- 
erer  Co.,  146  Fed.  993. 

Trivial  violation. —  One  will  not  be  pun- 
ished for  the  violation  of  an  injunction  re- 
straining the  use  of  articles  infringing  a 
patent  when  he  has  made  an  honest  effort 
to  remove  the  offending  articles  from  the 
premises  where  they  were  used,  although,  by 
oversight,  a  few  articles  remain.  Edison 
Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Goelet,  65  Fed.  612. 

70.  Dickerson  v.  Armstrong,  94  Fed.  864. 

71.  Norton  v.  Eagle  Automatic  Can  Co.,  59 
Fed.  137.     And  see  Valentine  v.  Reynolds,  28 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,813. 

72.  Dudgeon  v.  Thomson,  3  App.  Cas.  34. 

73.  Johnson  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,   R.   Co.,   37 
Fed.  147,  2  L.  R.  A.  489. 

74.  Christensen   Engineering  Co.   v.  West- 
inghouse   Air-Brake    Co.,    135    Fed.    774,    68 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1019 


(B)  Evidence.  The  rules  of  evidence  governing  in  proceedings  to  punish  the 
violation  of  injunctions  in  general  apply  to  proceedings  to  punish  the  violation  of 
injunctions  in  patent  cases.75 

(c)  Hearing  and  Determination.  On  the  hearing  of  the  motion  the  question 
as  to  whether  the  machine  constructed  is  the  same  as  the  old  one  enjoined  is  one 
of  fact  to  be  determined  on  the  evidence.76  Where  a  court  issues  an  injunction 
to  prevent  the  infringement  of  a  patent  solely  upon  the  authority  of  a  decision  in 
another  circuit,  in  a  suit  between  the  same  parties,  it  will,  on  the  hearing  of  a 
motion  for  an  attachment  for  contempt  in  violating  the  injunction,  follow  the 
construction  which  was  placed  upon  the  patent  in  such  other  circuit.77  If  the 
violation  of  an  injunction  against  the  infringing  of  a  patent,  either  as  to  its  char- 
acter or  the  fact  of  its  commission,  is  doubtful  upon  the  proofs,  the  court  will 
remit  the  party  to  his  right  to  h'le  a  supplemental  bill  in  the  original  suit,78  or  to 
institute  a  new  and  plenary  action.79  However,  where  the  violation  of  an  injunc- 
tion is  wilful,  the  summary  method  of  correction  is  imperative,  and  will  not  be 
arrested  by  the  fact  that  the  proofs  of  violation  are  conflicting,  or  that  the  things 
used  by  defendant  are  in  some  respects  different  from  those  interdicted.80  A 


C.  C.  A.  476,  holding,  however,  that  where 
notice  of  the  commencement  of  contempt  pro- 
ceedings was  properly  given  to  defendant's 
attorney,  and,  under  order  of  court,  notice 
of  the  application  for  attachment  and  a  copy 
of  the  affidavits  to  be  issued  thereon,  were 
sent  to  defendant  by  registered  mail  and  re- 
turned marked  "  Refused,"  defendant  not 
having  controverted  the  charge  of  contempt, 
an  objection  that  the  notice  of  the  proceed- 
ing was  not  properly  served  is  not  well 
taken. 

75.  See  INJUNCTIONS,  22  Cyc.  1023. 

Presumptions. —  Machines  designated  by 
the  same  name  and  made  by  the  same  com- 
pany as  the  machines  containing  infringing 
devices,  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  which 
were  enjoined,  will  be  presumed  to  be  the 
same,  in  the  absence  of  any  denial,  in  pro- 
ceedings to  punish  a  violation  of  the  in- 
junction. Stahl  v.  Ertel,  62  Fed.  920.  De- 
fendant, four  months  before  the  service  of 
an  injunction  on  him,  executed  a  bond  to 
plaintiff,  acknowledging  the  validity  of  his 
patent  and  his  right  to  all  that  was  granted 
by  it.  It  was  held  that  the  bond  was  no 
evidence  of  a  breach  of  the  injunction  further 
than  the  recital  that  defendant  had  infringed 
the  patent  might  have  a  tendency  to  estab- 
lish such  breach,  and  that  the  inference  of 
presumption  arising  from  it  might  be  over- 
come by  credible  and  positive  testimony, 
proving  no  infringement.  Byam  v.  Eddy,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,263,  2  Blatchf.  521,  24  Vt. 
666. 

Burden  of  proof. —  The  burden  of  proof  es- 
tablishing the  violation  of  the  injunction 
rests  with  complainant.  Accumulator  Co.  v. 
Consolidated  Electric  Storage  Co.,  53  Fed. 
793. 

Admissibility. —  On  a  motion  for  attach- 
ment for  contempt  for  violating  an  injunc- 
tion issued  to  restrain  the  infringement  of  a 
patent,  after  a  construction  has  been  given 
to  a  patent  by  the  court,  no  testimony  is 
admissible  to  vary  such  construction.  Bur- 
dett  v.  Estey,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,146,  4  Ban. 
&  A.  141,  16  Blatchf.  105.  Affidavits  to  show 


that  the  patentee  was  not  the  first  and 
original  inventor  of  the  thing  patented  are 
immaterial  and  irrelevant.  Whipple  v. 
Hutchinson,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,517,  4 
Blatchf.  190.  It  is  a  matter  of  discretion 
whether  the  court  will  receive  expert  testi- 
mony on  the  question  of  infringement,  or 
will  examine  the  alleged  infringing  articles 
for  itself.  Burdett  v.  Estey,  supra. 

Weight  and  sufficiency. —  The  evidence  of  a 
breach  of  an  injunction  must  be  clear  to 
authorize  punishment  therefor.  Woodruff  v. 
North  Bloomfield  Gravel  Min.  Co.,  45  Fed. 
129;  Smith  v.  Halkyard,  19  Fed.  602;  Bird- 
sell  v.  Hagerstown  Agricultural  Implement 
Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,436,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
519,  1  Hughes  59,  11  Off.  Gaz.  420. 

76.  Birdsell    v.    Hagerstown    Agricultural 
Implement  Mfg.  Co.,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,436, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  519,  1  Hughes  59,  11  Off.  Gaz. 
420. 

77.  Accumulator  Co.  v.  Consolidated  Elec- 
tric Storage  Co.,  53  Fed.  793. 

78.  Enterprise  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sargent,  48  Fed. 
453;  Allis  t?.  Stowell,  15  Fed.  242. 

79.  U.  S.  Playing-Card  Co.  v.  Spalding,  93 
Fed.  822;  Enterprise  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sargent,  48 
Fed.  453;   Truax  v.  Detweiler,  46   Fed.   117; 
Pennsylvania  Diamond-Drill  Co.  v.  Simpson, 
39    Fed.    284;    Temple    Pump    Co.    v.    Goss 
Pump,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Fed.  292;  Wirt  v.  Brown, 
30  .Fed.   187;   Allis  v.  Stowell,   15   Fed.   242; 
Bate  Refrigerating  Co.  v.   Eastman,    11   Fed. 
902;     Putnam    v.    Hollender,     11     Fed.     75; 
Liddle   v.    Cory,    15    Fed.    Cas.   No.    8,338,    7 
Blatchf.    1.      A    consent    decree    against    de- 
fendant   for    damages    and    a    perpetual    in- 
junction is  not  such  a  general  decree  in  favor 
of  complainant  as  will  allow  him  to  obtain 
an  attachment  for  violation  of  the  injunction 
upon  motion,  but  if  he  desires  to  enjoin  the 
alleged   infringement   it  must  be   done  by   a 
bill  in  the  usual  way.    Howard  v.  Mast,  etc., 
Co.,  33  Fed.  867;  Highby  v.  Columbia  Rub- 
ber Co.,  18  Fed.  601. 

80.  Wetherill  v.  New  Jersey  Zinc  Co.,  29 
Fed.   Cas.   No.    17,463,    1    Ban.   &   A.    105,   5 
Off.  Gaz.  460. 

[XIII,  C,  11,  d,  (vi),  (c)] 


1020     [30  eye.]  PATENTS 

motion  for  an  attachment  may  be  denied  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the 
same  question  of  infringement  on  the  accounting  under  the  interlocutory 
decree.81 

(vn)  PUNISHMENT—  (A)  Matters  Considered  in  Mitigation.  The  fact  that 
the  injunction  was  erroneously  issued  may  be  considered  in  mitigation  of  punish- 
ment,82 as  may  the  fact  that  the  acts  in  violation  were  without  intention  to  disobey 
the  injunction.83 

(B)  Amount  of  Fine.  The  amount  of  the  fine  assessed  for  the  violation  of 
the  injunction  is  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the  court.84  As  contempt  in  the 
violation  of  injunctions  in  a  patent  case  is  a  criminal  offense,  the  fine  should  bear 
a  just  proportion  to  the  magnitude  of  the  offense,  and  ought  not  in  general  to 
exceed  such  amount  as  would  ordinarily  be  imposed  as  a  fine  when  paid  over  to 
the  government.85  A  light  fine  will  be  imposed  where  the  violation  was  probably 
unintentional.86 

(o)  Distribution  of  Fine.  The  court  may  direct  payment  to  the  complainant 
of  a  part  or  all  of  the  fine  imposed,  as  a  compensation  for  his  time  and  outlay  in 
prosecuting  the  application  ;87  but  the  court  will  not  compensate  complainant  for 
any  profits  or  damages  resulting  from  the  infringement  involved  in  the  violation 
of  the  injunction.88 

(vm)  COSTS.  Where  the  injunction  has  been  violated,  and  defendant  is  pro- 
tected from  the  consequences  only  by  a  defect  in  the  service  of  the  writ,  no  costs 
will  be  allowed  to  him  on  denial  of  a  motion  for  an  attachment  for  such  violation.89 

12.  DAMAGES  .AND  PROFITS90 — a.  Damages  in  Actions  at  Law  —  (i)  RIGHT  TO 
RECOVER  AND  FORM  OF  ACTION.  Damages  for  the  infringement  of  a  patent 
may  be  recovered  by  an  action  at  law,91  the  proper  action  being  trespass  on  the 
case.93 

(n)  AMOUNT  RECOVERABLE — (A)  In  General.  Plaintiff  is  entitled  to  a  ver- 
dict only  for  the  actual  damages  sustained  by  him  because  of  and  during  the  time 
of  the  infringement  for  which  the  suit  was  brought,93  and  not  to  exemplary 

81.  Burdett  V.  Estey,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,146,       [affirmed  in  129  Fed.  1005,  64  C.  C.  A.  122]  ; 

4  Ban.  &  A.   141,  16  Blatchf.   105.  Macaulay  v.  White  Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  9  Fed. 

82.  Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Chris-  698.     But  see  Searls  v.  Worden,  13  Fed.  716. 
tensen  Engineering  Co.,  128  Fed.  749.  89.  Whipple  v.   Hutchinson,   29    Fed.   Cas. 

83.  In  re  De  Forest  Wireless  Tel.  Co.,  154  No.  17,517,  4  Blatchf.  190. 

Fed.  81 ;  Norton  v.  Eagle  Automatic  Can  Co.,  80.  Damages  generally  see  DAMAGES. 
59  Fed.  137;  Morss  v.  Domestic  Sewing-  91.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4919  [U.  S. 
Mach.  Co.,  38  Fed.  482;  Bate  Refrigerating  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3394];  Birdsall  v. 
Co.  v.  Gillett,  30  Fed.  683 ;  Iowa  Barb  Steel-  Coolidge,  93  U.  S.  64,  23  L.  ed.  802 ;  Harper, 
Wire  Co.  v.  Southern  Barbed-Wire  Co.,  30  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wilgus,  56  Fed.  587,  6  C.  C.  A. 
Fed.  615;  Carstaedt  v.  U.  S.  Corset  Co.,  5  45;  Bragg  v.  Stockton,  27  Fed.  509;  Living- 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,468,  2  Ban.  &  A.  331,  13  ston  v.  Jones,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,414,  2  Fish. 
Blatchf.  371,  10  Off.  Gaz.  3;  Phillips  v.  De-  Pat.  Cas.  207,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330  [reversed  on 
troit,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,101,  3  Ban.  &  A.  other  grounds  in  1  Wall.  155,  17  L.  ed.  662]. 
150,  2  Flipp.  92,  16  Off.  Gaz.  627.  See  also  92.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4919  [U.  S. 
Goodyear  v.  Mullee,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,577,  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3394];  Byam  v.  Bul- 

5  Blatchf.  429,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  209.  lard,   4    Fed.    Cas.   No.    2,262,    1    Curt.    100; 

84.  Morss   v.   Domestic    Sewing-Mach.   Co.,  Stein  v.  Goddard,   22   Fed.   Cas.   No.    13,353, 
38    Fed.   482;    Iowa   Barb   Steel-Wire   Co.   v.  McAllister  82. 

Southern    Barbed- Wire    Co.,    30     Fed.    615;  93.  Birdsall  v.  Coolidge,  93  U.   S.   64,  23 

Carstaedt  v.   U.   S.   Corset  Co.,  5    Fed.   Cas.  L.  ed.   802;    Lee  v.  Pillsbury,   49   Fed.   747; 

No.  2,468,  2  Ban.  &  A.  331,  13  Blatchf.  371,  National  Car-Brake  Shoe  Co.  v.  Terre  Haute 

10  Off.  Gaz.  3.  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Fed.  514;  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1 

85.  Searls  v.  Worden,  13  Fed.  716.  Fed.  Cas.  No.  217,  2  Robb  Pat.   Cas.  530,  2 

86.  Frank  v.  Bernard,  146  Fed.  137.  Woodb.  &  M.    121;   Carter  v.  Baker,  5   Fed. 

87.  Christensen   Engineering   Co.   v.  West-  Cas.  No.  2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy. 
inghouse    Air-Brake    Co.,    135    Fed.    774,    68  512;  Hayden  v.  Suffolk  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed.  Cas. 
C.  C.  A.  476;  Cary  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Acme  Flexible  No.  6,26*1,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  86   [affirmed  in 
Clasp   Co.,   108    Fed.   873,   48  C.   C.   A.    118;  3  Wall.  315,  18  L.  ed.  76];   Ransom  v.  New 
Macaulay  v.  White  Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  9  Fed.  York,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,573,  1   Fish.  Pat. 
698.  Cas.  252 ;  Smith  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

88.  Dowagiac  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Minnesota  Mo-  13,057. 

line  Plow  Co.,  124  Fed.  735,  61  C.  C.  A.  57          No  damages  for  use  before  patent  are  al- 

[XIII,  C,  11,  d.  (VI),  (C)] 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1021 


damages.94     Damages  are  to  be  measured  by  the  actual  loss  to  plaintiff,95  which 
must  be  shown.96     It  may  be  shown  by  any  means  which  will  best  establish  the  loss.97 


lowable.  Brodie  v.  Ophir  Silver  Min.  Co.,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,919,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  137,  5 
Sawy.  808. 

On  reissue  no  damages  before  date  of  re- 
issue are  allowable.  Agawam  Woolen  Co.  v. 
Jordan,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  583,  19  L.  ed.  177. 

Damages  limited  to  direct  effect  and  the 
use  of  the  particular  invention  patented  see 
Carter  v.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,472,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512. 

94.  Buck    v.    Hermance,    4    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
2,082,   1    Blatchf.   398,   Fish.   Pat.   Rep.  251; 
Hall    -v.    Wiles,    11    Fed.    Cas.    No.    5,954,    2 
Blatchf.  194,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  433;  McCormick 
v.  Seymour,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,727,  3  Blatchf. 
209;  Pitts  v.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.   11,192, 
2  Blatchf.   229,   Fish.   Pat.  Rep.  441;   Wash- 
burn   v.   Gould,   29    Fed.    Cas.   No.    17,214,   2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  206,  3  Story  122;  Whittemore 
v.   Cutter,   29   Fed.  Cas.   No.    17,601,   1   Gall. 
478,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  40.     Contra,  Parker  v. 
Corbin,    18   Fed.   Cas.  No.   10,731,   4  McLean 
462,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  736. 

95.  Birdsall  v.  Coolidge,  93  U.  S.  64,  23 
L.  ed.  802;   Cassidy  v.  Hunt,  75  Fed.   1012; 
Lee    v.    Pillsbury,    49    Fed.    747;     Earle    V. 
Sawyer,   8   Fed.   Cas.  No.   4,247,  4  Mason-  1, 

1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  490 ;  Goodyear  v.  Bishop,  10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   5,559,  2   Fish.  Pat.   Cas.   154; 
La  Baw  v.  Hawkins,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,961, 

2  Ban.  &  A.  561;  McComb  v.  Brodie,  15  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    8,708,    5    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    384,    1 
Woods   153,  2  Off.  Gaz.   117;   Whittemore  v. 
Cutter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,601,  1  Gall.  478, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  40;  United  Horseshoe,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Stewart,   13   App.   Cas.  401,  59  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  561. 

Profits  which  plaintiff  might  have  made 
but  for  the  infringement  a're  the  damages  re- 
coverable. McCormick  v.  Seymour,  15  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  8,726,  2  Blatchf.  240  [reversed  in 
part  in  16  How.  480,  14  L.  ed.  1024],  15  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  8,727,  3  Blatchf.  209  [affirmed  in 

19  How.  96,   15  L.  ed.  557]  ;   Rice  v.  Heald, 

20  Fed.   Cas.  No.    11,752    [reversed  on  other 
grounds   in    104   U.   S.   737,   26   L.   ed.   910]. 
Damages  include  not  only  the  loss  upon  the 
patented  device  but  the  loss  of  other  profits 
which  would  have  accompanied  it.     Hawes  v. 
Washburne,    11    Fed.    Cas.   No.   6,242,   5   Off. 
Gaz.  491. 

Where  plaintiff  did  not  mark  his  articles 
"  patented "  nominal  damages  only  are  re- 
coverable. McComb  v.  Brodie,  15  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8,708,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  384,  1  Woods 
153,  2  Off.  Gaz.  117. 

Where  employee  innocently  infringes  dam- 
ages are  nominal.  Bryce  V.  Dorr,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,070,  3  McLean* 582,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
302. 

Making  invention  without  using  it  gives 
only  nominal  damages.  Whittemore  v.  Cutter, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,601,  1  Gall.  478,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  40. 

Where  there  is  no  established  license-fee 
and  no  use  of  the  invention  save  by  defend- 
ant there  is  no  loss  to  plaintiff  and  only 


nominal  damages  can  be  awarded.  Seattle  v. 
McNamara,  81  Fed.  863,  26  C.  C.  A.  652. 

Where  there  is  no  damage  or  loss  suit  will 
not  lie.  Byam  17.  Bullard,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,262,  1  Curt.  100. 

Part  of  machine  covered  by  patent. —  The 
estimation  of  damages  must  be  confined  to 
the  particular  part  of  the  machine  covered  by 
the  patent  upon  which  suit  is  brought.  Mc- 
Creary  v.  Pennsylvania  Canal  Co.,  141  U.  S. 

459,  12  S.  Ct.  40,  35  L.  ed.  817;   Fischer  v. 
Hayes,  22  Fed.  529 ;  Burdell  v.  Denig,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,142,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  588;  Carter 
v.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512;  Wayne  v.  Holmes,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,303,  1  Bond  27,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  20. 

Entire  damage  may  be  assessed  where  the 
entire  value  is  due  to  the  patented  feature. 
Hunt  Bros  Fruit-Packing  Co.  v.  Cassiday,  64 
Fed.  585,  12  C.  C.  A.  316;  Fifield  v.  Whitte- 
more, 33  Fed.  835. 

Injury  to  business  by  unfair  competition 
not  included  in  damages.  Stephens  v.  Felt,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,368a;  United  Horse  Shoe, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Stewart,  13  App.  Cas.  401,  59 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  561.  But  see  American- 
Braided  Wire  Co.  v.  Thomson,  44  Ch.  D.  274, 
59  L.  J.  Ch.  425,  62  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  616 
[reversing  38  Wkly.  Rep.  329]. 

Damages  for  separate  patents  sued  on  need 
not  be  apportioned.  Timken  v.  Olin,  41  Fed. 
169. 

96.  Robertson  v.  Blake,  94  U.   S.  728,  24 
L.  ed.  245;  Philp  v.  Nock,  17  Wall.    (U.  S.) 

460,  21  L.  ed.  679;  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cramer, 
109  Fed.  652,  48  C.  C.  A.  588;  Lee  v.  Pills- 
bury,  49  Fed.  747.     See  also  infra,  XIII,  C, 
14,  "h. 

Where  the  amount  of  actual  loss  is  not 
shown,  nominal  damages  only  can  be  awarded. 
Coupe  17.  Royer,  155  U.  S.  565,  15  S.  Ct.  199, 
39  L.  ed.  263 ;  New  York  v.  Ransom,  23  How. 
(U.  S.)  487,  16  L.  ed.  515;  Boston  v.  Allen, 
91  Fed.  248,  33  C.  C.  A.  485;  Houston,  etc., 
R.  Co.  17.  Stern,  74  Fed.  636,  20  C.  C.  A.  568 ; 
Hunt  Bros.  Fruit-Packing  Co.  v.  Cassidy,  53 
Fed.  257,  3  C.  C.  A.  525 ;  Lee  v.  Pillsbury,  49 
Fed.  747;  Royer  17.  Schultz  Belting  Co.,  45 
Fed.  51  [affirmed  in  154  U.  S.  515,  14  S.  Ct. 
1152,  38  L.  ed.  1075];  National  Car-Brake 
Shoe  Co.  17.  Terre  Haute  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  19 
Fed.  514;  Proctor  v.  Brill,  4  Fed.  415;  Bur- 
dell  17.  Denig,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,142,  2  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  588;  Poppenhusen  17.  New  York 
Gutta  Percha  Comb  Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,283,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  62;  Rollhaus  17. 
McPherson,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,026;  Smith 
17.  Higgins,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,058. 

97.  Suffolk  Mfg.   Co.   17.   Hayden,   3   Wall. 
(U.  S.)    315,   18  L.  ed.   76;   Singer  Mfg.  Co. 
17.   Cramer,    109   Fed.   652,   48   C.   C.  A.   588; 
Hunt  Bros.  Fruit  Packing  Co.  17.  Cassiday,  64 
Fed.  585,  12  C.  C.  A.  316;  Lee  v.  Pillsbury, 
49    Fed.    747;    Goodyear   v.   Bishop,    10    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,559,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  154;  Berdon 
Fire-Aims  Mfg.  Co.  v.  U.   S.,  26  Ct.  01.  48 

[XIII,  C,  12,  a,  (n),  (A)] 


1022     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


License-fees  charged  others  may  be  used  as  guides.98    Where  there  is  no  other  means 
of  estimating  damages  the  profits  derived  by  the  infringer  may  be  considered," 


[affirmed  in  156  U.  S.  552,  15  S.  Ct.  420,  39 
L.  ed.  530];  McKeever  v.  U.  S.,  14  Ct.  Cl. 
396. 

Where  patentee  does  not  license  others  but 
manufacturers,  it  is  to  be  presumed  tbxt  he 
would  have  made  all  infringing  sales.  Rose 
v.  Hirsh,  94  Fed.  177,  36  C.  C.  A.  132.  It 
will  not  be  presumed,  however,  that  plaintiff 
would  have  sold  the  same  number  as  infringer 
at  a  higher  price.  Jennings  t\  Rogers  Silver 
Plate  Co.,  118  Fed.  339. 

Evidence  of  settlement  with  others  not 
competent  nor  is  royalty  paid  by  defendant 
to  others.  International  Tooth  Crown  Co.  v. 
Hank's  Dental  Assoc.,  Ill  Fed.  916;  Ewart 
Mfg.  Ob.  v.  Bcldwin  Cycle-Chain  Co.,  91  Fed. 
262;  Westcott  v.  Rude,  19  Fed.  830;  National 
Car-Brake  Shoe  Co.  v.  Terre  Haute  Car,  etc., 
Co.,  19  Fed.  514. 

Prior  judgment  upon  different  evidence 
does  not  fix  value.  Blake  v.  Greenwood  Ceme- 
tery, 16  Fed.  676,  21  Blatchf.  222. 

98.  Established  license-fees  may  be  taken 
as  the  measure  of  damages. — Clark  v.  Wooster, 
119  U.  S.  322,  7  S.  Ct.  217,  30  L.  ed.  392; 
Washington,  etc.,  Steam  Packet  Co.  v.  Sickles, 
19  Wall.  (U.  S.)  611,  22  L.  ed.  203;  Philp 
v.  Nock,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  460,  21  L.  ed.  679; 
Seymour  v.  McCormick,  16  How.  (U.  S.)  480, 
14  L.  ed.  1024;  Hogg  v.  Emerson,  11  How. 
(U.  S.)  587,  13  L.  ed.  824;  Leeds,  etc., 
Co.  v.  Victor  Talking  Mach.  Co.,  154  Fed. 
58,  83  C.  C.  A.  170;  Cassidy  v.  Hunt,  75 
Fed.  1012;  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stern, 
74  Fed.  636,  20  C.  C.  A.  568 ;  Timken  v.  Olin, 
41  Fed.  169;  McDonald  v.  Whitney,  39  Fed. 
466;  Cary  v.  Lovell  Mfg.  Co.,  37  Fed.  654; 
May  v.  Fond  du  Lac  County,  27  Fed.  691; 
Graham  v.  Geneva  Lake  Crawford  Mfg.  Co., 
24  Fed.  642;  Wooster  v.  Simonson,  20  Fed. 
316;  National  Car-Brake  Shoe  Co.  v.  Terre 
Haute  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Fed.  514;  Emerson 
v.  Sirnm,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,443,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  281,  3  Off.  Gaz.  293;  Goodyear  v.  Bishop, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,559,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  154; 
Livingston  v.  Jones,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,414, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  207,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  1  Wall.  155,  17 
L.  ed.  662] ;  McCormick  v.  Seymour,  15  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  8,727,  3  Blatchf.  209;  Sanders  v. 
Logan,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,295,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  167,  8  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  (Pa.)  361;  Star 
Salt  Caster  Co.  v.  Crossman,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,320,  4  Ban.  &  A.  566;  Penn  v.  Jack, 
L.  R.  5  Eq.  81,  37  L.  J.  Ch.  136,  17  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  407,  16  Wkly.  Rep.  243;  United 
Tel.  Co.  v.  Walker,  56  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  508. 
But  a  license-fee  is  not  an  arbitrary  guide 
and  need  not  be  followed  unless  circumstances 
warrant  it.  Birdsall  v.  Ccolidge,  93  U.  S.  64, 
23  L.  ed.  802 ;  Keller  v.  Stolzenbaugh,  43  Fed. 
378;  Colgate  v.  Western  Electric  Co.,  28  Fed. 
146;  Wooster  v.  Thornton,  26  Fed.  274  [af- 
firmed in  136  U.  S.  651,  10  S.  Ct.  1074,  34 
L.  ed.  550] ;  Campbell  v.  Barclay,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,353,  5  Biss.  179;  Sickels  v.  Borden,  23 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,832,  3  Blatchf.  535. 

[XIII,  C,  12,  a,  (II),  (A)] 


To  serve  as  a  guide  the  license-fees  must  be 
established  and  uniform  and  made  under 
such  circumstances  as  to  indicate  the  real 
value.  Rude  v.  Westcott,  130  U.  S.  152,  9 
S.  Ct.  463,  32  L.  ed.  888 ;  International  Tooth 
Crown  Co.  V.  Hank's  Dental  Assoc.,  Ill  Fed. 
916;  Royer  V.  Shultz  Belting  to.,  45  Fed.  51 
[affirmed  in  154  U.  S.  515,  14  S.  Ct.  1152,  38 
L.  ed.  1075] ;  Hammacher  -17.  Wilson,  32  Fed. 
796;  Bates  v.  St.  Johnsbury,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 
Fed.  628;  Graham  v.  Geneva  Lake  Crawford 
Mfg.  Co.,  24  Fed.  642;  Westcott  v.  Rude,  19 
Fed.  830;  National  Car-Brake  Shoe  Co.  v. 
Terre  Haute  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Fed.  514; 
Bussey  v.  Excelsior  Co.,  1  Fed.  640,  1 
McCrary  161  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in 
110  U.  S.  131,  4  S.  Ct.  38,  28  L.  ed.  95]; 
Judson  v.  Bradford,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,564,  3 
Ban.  &  A.  539,  16  Off.  Gaz.  171. 

Fee  may  be  regarded  as  fixed,  although 
exceptions  sometimes  made.  Asmus  v.  Free- 
man, 34  Fed.  902. 

Where  it  includes  other  inventions,  the 
license-fee  is  no  guide.  Vulcanite  Pavement 
Co.  I/.  American  Artificial  Stone  Pavement 
Co.,  36  Fed.  378;  Willimantic  Linen  Co.  v. 
Clark  Thread  Co.,  27  Fed.  865;  Porter  Needle 
Co.  v.  National  Needle  Co.,  22  Fed.  829; 
Wooster  v.  Simonson,  16  Fed.  680. 

Unless  plaintiff  would  have  made  the  sales, 
the  rule  as  to  license-fees  is  not  applied.  La 
Baw  v.  Hawkins,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,961,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  561. 

99.  Cassidy  v.  Hunt,  75  Fed.  1012; 
Brickill  v.  Baltimore,  60  Fed.  98,  8  C.  C.  A. 
500;  Royer  v.  Coupe,  29  Fed.  358;  Bell  v. 
Phillips,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,262;  Campbell  v. 
Barclay,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,353,  5  Biss.  179; 
Case  v.  Brown,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,488,  1  Biss. 
382,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  268;  Conover  v.  Rapp, 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,124,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  57; 

Grant  v.  ,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,701; 

Page  v.  Ferry,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,662,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  298;  Parker  v.  Bamker,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,725,  6  McLean  631;  Parker 
v.  Perkins,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,745;  Pitts  v. 
Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  441;  Wilbur  v.  Beecher,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,634,  2  Blatchf.  132,  Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  401 ;  Wintermute  v.  Redington,  30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,896,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
239. 

Equitable  test  as  to  profits  may  be  used 
where  no  other  measure  of  damages  is  avail- 
able. Burdell  v.  Denig,  92  U.  S.  716,  23 
L.  ed.  764. 

Settlements  with  other  infringers  do  not 
constitute  guides  and  evidence  thereof  is  in- 
admissible. Comely  v.  Marckwald,  131  U.  S. 
159,  9  S.  Ct.  744,  33  L.  ed.  117  [affirming 
32  Fed.  292,  23  Blatchf.  163] ;  Keyes  v. 
Pueblo,  etc.,  Co.,  43  Fed.  478  [affirmed  in 
154  U.  S.  507,  513,  14  S.  Ct.  1148,  38  L.  ed. 
1083]  :  United  Nickel  Co.  v.  Central  Pac.  R. 
Co.,  36  Fed.  186;  National  Car-Brake  Shoe 
Co.  v.  Terre  Haute  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Fed. 
514;  Matthews  V.  Spangenberg,  14  Fed.  350. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1023 


but  it  is  not  the  controlling  consideration.  The  test  is  what  plaintiff  lost  and  not 
what  defendant  gained.1 

(B)  Counsel  Fees  and  Expenses.  Counsel  fees  and  expenses  of  the  litigation 
cannot  be  included  in  the  damages.2 

(c)  Interest.  Interest  upon  the  amount  due  plaintiff  may  be  included  in  the 
verdict.3 

(D)  Double  and  Treble  Damages.  The  verdict  at  law  must  be  for  the  actual 
damages  but  the  court  may  in  its  discretion  enter  judgment  thereon  for  any  sum 
above  the  verdict  not  exceeding  three  times  the  amount  of  the  verdict.4  Dam- 
ages may  be  increased  to  recompense  plaintiff,  where  the  circumstances  of  the 
infringement  are  aggravated  and  the  litigation  expensive.5 

(in)  DESIGNS.  Damages  for  the  infringement  of  design  patents  may  be  recov- 
ered in  the  same  manner  as  other  patents,6  except  that  where  the  infringement 
was  wilful  after  notice,  a  minimum  amount  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  may 
be  collected  for  each  offense.7 


1.  Royer    v.    Shultz    Belting    Co.,    45    Fed. 
51  [affirmed  in  154  U.  S.  515,  14  S.  Ct.  1151, 
38  L.  ed.  1075] ;   Cowing  v.  Rumsey,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.   3,296,  8  Blatchf.   36,  4  Fish.   Pat. 
Cas.   275;    McComb  v.   Brodie,   15   Fed.   Cas. 
No.  8,708,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  384,  1  Woods  153, 
2  Off.  Gaz.  117. 

Lack  of  actual  profits  made  by  defendant 
is  no  defense  where  there  is  real  loss  to  plain- 
tiff. Campbell  v.  Barclay,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,353,  5  Biss.  179;  Carter  v.  Baker,  5  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Caa.  404,  1 
Sawy.  512;  Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co. 
v.  Van  Antwerp,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,600,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  252,  9  Off.  Gaz.  497 ;  Pitts  v.  Hall, 
19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229,  1 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  441. 

2.  Philp  v.  Nock,  17  Wall.  (U.  S.)  460,  21 
L.   ed.   679;    Teese   v.   Huntingdon,   23   How. 
(U.  S.)    2,  16  L.  ed.  479;   Blanchard's  Gun- 
Stock    Turning    Factory   v.    Warner,    3    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,521,   1  Blatchf.  255,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  184;  Parker  v.  Hulme,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10.740,    1    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.   44;    Stimpson   V. 
Railroads,  23  Fed.   Cas.  No.   13,456,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  595,  1  Wall.  Jr.  164;  Whittemore 
v.  Cutter,   29   Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,600,   1   Gall. 
429,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  28.     Contra,  Allen  r. 
Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  217,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
530,  2  Woodb.  &  M.  121;  Boston  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Fiske,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.   1,681,  2  Mason  119, 

1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  320;   Knight  v.  Gavit,   14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,884;  Pierson  v.  Eagle  Screw 
Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,156,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
268,  3  Story  402. 

3.  It     is     generally     held     that     interest 
from    time    suit    brought    may    be    included. 
May    v.    Fond    du    Lac,    27    Fed.    691     [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in   137   U.   S.   395, 
11  S.  Ct.  98,  34  L.  ed.  714];  McCormick  v. 
Seymour,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,726,  2  Blatchf. 
240;  Pitts  v.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,192, 

2  Blatchf.  229,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  441 ;  Sickels 
v.  Borden,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,832,  3  Blatchf. 
535;    Tatham  v.  Le  Roy,   23   Fed.   Cas.  No. 
13,760,  2  Blatchf.  474. 

Where  a  fixed  royalty  is  taken  as  the 
measure  interest  is  allowed  from  the  date 
when  such  royalties  would  have  been  due. 
McNeely  v.  Williames,  96  Fed.  978,  37  C.  C. 


A.  641;  Locomotive  Safety  Truck  Co.  v, 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  2  Fed.  677  [reversed  oa 
other  grounds  in  110  U.  S.  490,  4  S.  Ct.  220, 
28  L.  ed.  222]. 

4.  U.   S.   Rev.    St.    (1878)    §    4919    [U.   S. 
Comp.     St.     (1901)     p.     3394];     Birdsall    v. 
Coolidge,  93  U.  S.  64,  23  L.  ed.  802;  National 
Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elsas,  81  Fed.  197; 
Welling  v.  La  Bau,  35  Fed.  302 ;  Bell  v.  U.  S. 
Stamping  Co.,  32  Fed.  549;  Carew  v.  Boston 
Elastic  Fabric  Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,397,  3 
Cliff.  356,  5  Fish.  Pat.   Cas.  90,   1   Off.  Gaz, 
91;   Gray  v.  James,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,718, 
Pet.  C.  C.  394,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  120;  Guyon 
v.  Serrell,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,881,  1  Blatchf, 
244,   1    Fish.   Pat.  Rep.    151;    Whittemore  v. 
Cutter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,601,  1  Gall.  478, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  40. 

5.  National  Folding  Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Rob- 
ertson,  125  ±'ed.  524;  Morss  v.  Union  Form 
Co.,  39  Fed.  468 ;  Lyon  v.  Donaldson,  34  Fed. 
789;  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  217,  2 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  530,  2  Woodb.  &  M.  121 ;  Bell 
v.    McCullough,    3    Fed.    Cas.    No.    1,256,    1 
Bond  194,   1   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  380;   Brodie  v. 
Ophir  Silver  Min.  Co.,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,919, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   137,  5  Sawy.  608;   Guyort 
v.  Serrell,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,881,  1  Blatchf. 
244,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  151;  Peek  v.  Frame,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,903,  9  Blatchf.  194,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  113;  Russell  v.  Place,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,161,  9  Blatchf.  173,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas, 
134    [affirmed   in  94   U.    S.    606,    24   L.    ed, 
214]. 

Without  bad  faith  of  defendant  or  special 
circumstances,  damages  will  not  be  increased. 
Welling  v.  La  Bau,  35  Fed.  302;  Carlock  r. 
Tappan,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,412;  Schwarzel  v, 
Holenshade,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,506,  2  Bond 
29,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  116. 

6.  U.   S.   Rev.    St.    (1878)    §    4933    [U.   S, 
Comp.    St.    (1901)    p.    3399],    and    §    2,   Act 
Feb.  4,  1887,  24  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  387   [U.  S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)   p.  3398]. 

7.  24   U.   S.   St.   at  L.   387    [U.   S.   Comp. 
St.    (1901)    p.   3398];    Frank  v.   Geiger,    121 
Fed.   126;   Gimbel  v.  Hogg,  97   Fed.  791,  3S 
C.   C.  A.  419;   Fuller  V.   Field,  82  Fed.  813, 
27  C.  C.  A.  165;  Lowell  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Whittall, 
71    Fed.   515;   Monroe  v.   Anderson,   58   Fed. 

[XIII,  C,  12,  a,  (in)] 


102±     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


(iv)  EFFECT  OF  RECOVERY.  The  recovery  of  damages  for  past  infringement 
does  not  give  the  inf ringer  the  right  to  continue  the  infringement  thereafter,8 
but  the  recovery  of  full  damages  in  satisfaction  for  the  use  of  the  particular 
machines  may  operate  to  release  them  from  the  monopoly.9 

b.  Profits  and  Damages  in  Suits  in  Equity  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  In  equity  the 
complainant  may  recover  the  amount  of  the  gains  and  profits  that  defendant  has 
made  from  the  use  of  the  invention,10  and  in  addition  may  have  the  damages 
sustained  by  him  assessed.11 


398,  7  C.  C.  A.  272;  Untermeyer  v.  Freund, 
50  Fed.  77  {.affirmed  in  58  Fed.  205,  7  C.  C. 
A.  183] ;  Ripley  v.  Elson  Glass  Co.,  49  Fed. 
927. 

The  statute  is  not  unconstitutional  but 
valid.  Untermeyer  v.  Freund,  58  Fed.  205,  7 
C.  C.  A.  183. 

Although  there  were  no  profits  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  dollars  may  be  collected. 
Pirkl  v.  Smith,  42  Fed.  410  [affirmed  in  154 
U.  S.  517,  14  S.  Ct.  1153,  38  L.  ed.  1082]. 

For  facts  showing  sufficient  notice  see  An- 
derson v.  Saint,  46  Fed.  7GO. 

8.  Birdsell    v.    Shaliol,    112    U.    S.    485,    5 
S.  Ct.  244,  28  L.  ed.  768 ;  Root  v.  Lake  Shore, 
etc.,  R.   Co.,    105  U.  S.   189,  26  L.  ed.  975; 
Suffolk  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hayden,  3  Wall.   (U.  S.) 
315,  18  L.  ed.  76;  Electric  Gas-Lighting  Co.  v. 
Wollensak,  70  Fed.  790;   Spaulding  v.  Page, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,219,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  641, 
1  Sawy.  702 ;  Friarson  r.  Loe,  9  Ch.  D.  48,  27 
Wkly/Rep.  183;  Needham  v.  Oxlay,  8  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.   604,  2  New  Rep.  388,   11  Wkly. 
Rep.  852. 

Recovery  from  vendor  does  not  release 
the  vendee  from  liability.  Westingliouse 
Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  New  York  Mut.  L. 
Ins.  Co.,  129  Fed.  213;  Van  Epps  v.  In- 
ternational Paper  Co.,  124  Fed.  542;  Tuttle 
v.  Matthews,  28  Fed.  98;  Blake  v.  Greenwood 
Cemetery  16  Fed.  676,  21  Blatchf.  222. 

9.  Electric  Gas-Lighting  Co.  V.  Wollensak, 
70  Fed.  790;  Fisher  v.  Consolidated  Amador 
Mine,  25  Fed.  201 ;  Steam  Stone-Cutter  Co.  v. 
Sheldons,   21   Fed.   875;   Allis  v.  Stowell,   16 
Fed.   783;    Steam    Stone-Cutter   Co.   v.   Shel- 
dons, 15  Fed.  608,  21  Blatchf.  260;  Booth  v. 
Seevers,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  l,648a,  19  Off.  Gaz. 
1140;   Gilbert,  etc.,  Mfg.   Co.  v.  Bussing,   10 
Fed.   Cas.   No.   5,416,    1    Ban.   &  A.   621,    12 
Blatchf.    426,    8    Off.    Gaz.    144;    Perrigo    v. 
Spaulding,   19  Fed.  Cas.  No.   10,994,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  348,  13  Blatchf.  389,  12  Off.  Gaz.  352; 
Spalding  v.  Page,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,219,  4 
Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    641,    1    Sawy.    702;    Steam 
Stonecutter  Co.  v.  Windsor  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,335,  4  Ban.  &  A.  445,  17  Blatchf. 
24. 

Where  license-fee  is  adopted  as  measure  of 
damages,  article  is  released  from  monopoly. 
Stutz  r.  Armstrong,  25  Fed.  147;  Sickels  v. 
Borden,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,832,  3  Blatchf. 
535;  Spaulding  v.  Page,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,219,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  641,  1  Sawy.  702. 
Contra,  Emerson  v.  Simm,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,443,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  281,  3  Off.  Gaz.  293. 

10.  May  recover  the  actual  profits  made  by 
the  infrin^er.    Sessions  v.  Romadka,  145  U.  S. 
29,  12  S.  Ct.  799,  36  L.  ed.  609;  Burdell  v. 

[XIII,  C,  12,  a.  (iv)] 


Denig,  92  U.  S.  716,  23  L.  ed.  764;  Littlefield 
V.  Perry,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  205,  22  L.  ed. 
577;  Dean  v.  Mason,  20  How.  ( U.  S.)  198, 

15  L.  ed.  876;  Livingston  v.  Woodworth,  15 
How.    (U.  S.)    546,   14  L.  ed.  809;   Campbell 
V.  New  York,  81  Fed.  182;  Kirk  v.  Du  Bois, 
46  Fed.  486    [affirmed  in   158   U.   S.   58,    15 
S.  Ct.  729,  39  L.  ed.  895]  ;   Morss  v.  Union 
Form  Co.,  39  Fed.  468 ;  Munson  V.  Ne\v  York, 

16  Fed.    560,     21    Blatchf.    342;     Burdett   v. 
Estey,   3  Fed.  566,    19   Blatchf.   1;    Campbell 
v.  James,  2  Fed.  338,  18  Blatchf.  92;  Carter 
v.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  404,    1    Sawy.   512;    Coleman  v.  Liesor, 
6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,984;  La  Baw  v.  Hawkins, 
14   Fed.   Cas.  No.   7,961,   2   Ban.  &  A.   561; 
Sickels  v.  Borden,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   12,832, 
3  Blatchf.  535;   Tilghman  v.  Werks,  23  Fed. 
Cas.   No.    14,046,    1   Bond  511,   2   Fish.    Pat. 
Cas.   229;    Vaughan  v.   East  Tennessee,   etc., 
R.  Co.,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,898,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
537,  1  Flipp.  621,  11  Off.  Gaz.  789;  Wetherill 
v.  New  Jersey   Zinc.   Co.,   30   Fed.   Cas.   No. 
18,464,  1  Ban.  &  A.  485. 

The  fact  that  the  profits  are  due  princi- 
pally to  business  judgment  and  skill  of  de- 
fendant does  not  affect  the  rule.  Lawther  v . 
Hamilton,  64  Fed.  221. 

The  fact  that  defendant  could  have  made 
equal  profits  on  similar  unpatented  articles 
does  not  limit  -the  recovery.  Warren  v.  Keep, 
155  U.  S.  265,  15  S.  Ct.  83,  39  L.  ed.  144; 
Am  Ende  v.  Seabury,  43  Fed.  672;  Simpson 
v.  Davis,  22  Fed.  444,  22  Blatchf.  113;  Bur- 
dett v.  Estey,  3  Fed.  566,  19  Blatchf.  1. 

Although  the  patentee  has  himself  made  no 
use  of  his  patent,  he  is  entitled  to  profits. 
Crosby  Steam  Gage,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Consolidated 
Safety  Valve  Co.,  141  U.  S.  441,  12  S.  Ct. 
49,  35  L.  ed.  809. 

Profits  occurring  after  complainant  sells 
his  patent  pending  suit  cannot  be  recovered. 
Goss  Printing  Press  Co.  v.  Scott,  134  Fed. 
880. 

Manufacturer's    profits/ — A    trader    is    not 
liable  for  manufacturer's  profits.    Kissinger- , 
Ison   Co.   v.  Bradford   Belting  Co.,    123   Fed. 
91,  59  C.  C.  A.  221. 

That  user  may  be  sued  for  profits  after  col- 
lecting damages  from  manufacturer  see  U.  S. 
Printing  C'o.  v.  American  Playing-Card  Co., 
70  Fed.  50. 

11.  Damages  in  addition  to  profits  recov- 
erable see  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4921; 
Williams  v.  Rome,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  2  Fed.  702, 
18  Blatchf.  181;  Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic 
Fabric  Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,397,  3  Cliff. 
356,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  90,  1  Off.  Gaz.  91. 

Profits  and  damages  distinct. —  On  an  ac- 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1025 


(n)  ESTIMATION  OF  PROFITS  AND  DAMAGES.  It  must  be  clearly  shown  what 
saving  or  advantage  defendant  has  actually  derived  from  the  infringement,12  and 
the  burden  is  on  the  complainant  to  show  this.  Where  plaintiff  fails  to  show  the 
amount  of  profits  due  to  the  use  of  his  invention,  nominal  damages  only  will  be 
allowed.13  Defendant  is  not  responsible  for  all  profits  of  the  business  but  only  such 


counting  for  infringement  of  a  patent  under 
U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4921,  defendant's 
profits  and  complainant's  damages  are  dis- 
tinct from  and  independent  of  each  other  and 
are  governed  by  different  principles,  and  one 
cannot  be  said  to  be  the  measure  of  the  other, 
nor  the  allowance  of  one  to  preclude  recovery 
of  the  other.  Beach  v.  Hatch,  153  Fed.  763. 
It  is  proper  for  the  master  to  report  as  to 
each  separately.  Mast  v.  Superior  Drill  Co., 
154  Fed.  45,  83  C.  C.  A.  157. 

Where  profits  are  insufficient  to  recompense 
plaintiff  damages  will  be  allowed.  Birdsall 
v.  Coolidge,  93  U.  S.  64,  23  L.  ed.  802 ;  U.  S. 
Mitis  Co.  t;.  Carnegie  Steel  Co.,  89  Fed.  206 
[affirmed  in  90  Fed.  829,  33  C.  C.  A.  387] ; 
Williinantic  Thread  Co.  v.  Clark  Thread  Co., 
27  Fed.  865 ;  Andrews  t?.  Creegan,  7  Fed.  477, 
19  Blatchf.  113;  Burdett  v.  Estey,  3  Fed.  566, 
19  Blatchf.  1;  Brady  v.  Atlantic  Works,  3 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,795,  3  Ban.  &  A.  577,  15  Off. 
Gaz.  965 ;  Carew  v.  Boston  Elastic  Fabric  Co., 
5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,397,  3  Cliff.  356,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  90,  1  Off.  Gaz.  91;  Magic  Ruffle 
Co.  v.  Elm  City  Co.,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,950, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  152,  13  Blatchf.  109,  11  Off.  Gaz. 
501.  Where  profits  are  sufficient  to  recom- 
pense plaintiff  no  damages  are  allowed.  Ham- 
macher  t7.  Wilson,  32  Fed.  796;  Ford  v. 
Kurtz,  12  Fed.  789,  11  Biss.  324. 

That  damages  in  addition  to  profits  were 
first  allowed  by  the  act  of  1870  see  Elizabeth 
v.  American  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S. 
126,  24  L.  ed.  1000;  Willimantic  Thread  Co. 
v.  Clark  Thread  Co.,  27  Fed.  865;  Williams 
v.  Leonard,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,726,  13 
Blatchf.  282,  43  Conn.  569. 

English  practice. —  Equity  cannot  award 
both  damages  and  profits  but  the  complainant 
must  elect.  De  Vitre  v.  Betts,  L.  R.  6  H.  L. 
319,  42  L.  J.  Ch.  841,  21  Wkly.  Rep.  705; 
Neilson  v.  Betts,  L.  R.  5  H.  L.  1,  40  L.  J. 
Ch.  317,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  1121;  Holland  v.  Fox, 
2  C.  L.  R.  1576,  3  E.  &  B.  977,  1  Jur.  N.  S. 
13,  23  L.  J.  Q.  B.  357,  2  Wkly.  Rep.  558,  77 
E.  C.  L.  977;  Needham  v.  Oxley,  8  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  604,  2  New  Rep.  388,  11  Wkly.  Rep. 
852.  May  recover  profits  from  manufacturer 
and  damages  from  infringer.  Penn  t/.  Bibby, 
L.  R.  3  Eq.  308,  36  L.  J.  Ch.  277,  15  Wkly. 
Rep.  192. 

Canadian  practice.-— Plaintiff  cannot  have 
damages  and  profits  from  the  same  infringer 
but  may  have  profits  from  manufacturer  and 
damages  from  user.  Toronto  Auer  Light  Co. 
v.  Colling,  31  Ont.  18. 

12.  Only  actual  profits  are  recoverable,  not 
what  it  was  possible  for  defendant  to  make. 
Cincinnati  Siemens-Lungren  Gas  Illuminating 
Co.  17.  Western  Siemens-Lungren  Co.,  152 
U.  S.  200,  14  S.  Ct.  523,  38  L.  ed.  411;  Bur- 
dell  v.  Denig,  92  U.  S.  716,  23  L.  ed.  764; 
Dean  v.  Mason,  20  How.  (U.  S.)  198,  15 
[65] 


L.  ed.  876;  Westinghouse  v.  New  York  Air 
Brake  Co.,  140  Fed.  545,  72  C.  C.  A.  61; 
Robbins  v.  Illinois  Watch  Co.,  78  Fed.  124; 
Munson  v.  New  York,  16  Fed.  560,  21  Blatchf. 
342;  Burdett  v.  Estey,  3  Fed.  566,  19 
Blatchf.  1. 

License-fees.— Plaintiff  is  entitled  to  actual 
profits  without  regard  to  his  fixed  license- 
fees.  Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  125  U.  S.  136,  8 
S.  Ct.  894,  31  L.  ed.  664;  Elizabeth  v.  Ameri- 
can Nicholson  Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S.  126, 
24  L.  ed.  1000 ;  Wales  v.  Waterbury  Mfg.  Co., 
87  Fed.  920;  Fisk  v.  Mahler,  54  Fed.  528; 
Knox  v.  Great  Western  Quicksilver  Min.  Co., 
14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,907,  4  Ban.  &  A.  25,  7 
Reporter  325,  6  Sawy.  430,  14  Off.  Gaz.  897; 
Wooster  v.  Taylor,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,041, 

3  Ban.  &  A.  241,   14  Blatchf.  403.     In  case 
of    doubt    license-fees    followed.      Emigh    v. 
Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  6  Fed.  283,  4  Hughes 
271. 

That  profits  must  be  direct  and  not  indirect 
see  Diamond  Drill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelley,  131 
Fed.  89;  Winchester  Repeating  Arms  Co.  v. 
American  Buckle,  etc.,  Co.,  62  Fed.  278; 
Piper  t?.  Brown,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,181,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  240,  Holmes  196,  3  Off.  Gaz. 
97 ;  Wetherill  t?.  New  Jersey  Zinc  Co.,  29  Fed, 
Cas.  No.  17,464,  1  Ban.  &  A.  485. 

Profits  derived  from  advertisers  in  the  in- 
fringing hotel  register  may-  be  recovered. 
Hawes  v.  Gage,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,237,  5 
Off.  Gaz.  494. 

Profits  of  other  manufacturers  or  cost  to 
them  are  not  relevant  but  actual  profits  of 
defendant  must  be  shown.  Keystone  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Adams,  151  U.  S.  139,  14  S.  Ct.  295, 
38  L.  ed.  103  [reversing  41  Fed.  595] ;  Rob- 
bins  v.  Illinois  Watch  Co.,  81  Fed.  957,  27 
C.  C.  A.  21;  Child  t7.  Boston,  etc.,  Iron  Works, 
5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,674;  Troy  Iron,  etc.,  Fac- 
tory v.  Corning,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,196,  6 
Blatchf.  328,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  497. 

Proof  of  complainant's  profits  admitted  un- 
der special  circumstances  see  Rose  v.  Hirsh, 
94  Fed.  177,  36  C.  C.  A.  132,  51  L.  R.  A.  801. 

Only  profits  actually  made  by  defendant 
are  recoverable.  El  wood  v.  Christy,  18  C.  B. 
N.  S.  494,  34  L.  J.  C.  P.  130,  13  Wkly.  Rep. 
498,  114  E.  C.  L.  494;  Walton  v.  Lavater, 
8  C.  B.  N.  S.  162,  6  Jur.  N.  S.  1251,  29  L.  J. 
C.  P.  275,  3  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  272,  98  E.  C.  L. 
162.  Defendant  must  disclose  cost  before  and 
after  using  invention.  Siddell  v.  Vickers,  61 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  233.  Price  of  infringing 
articles  may  be  recovered.  Holland  v.  Fox, 
23  L.  J.  Q.'  B.  211,  1  L.  &  M.  221,  2  Wkly. 
Rep.  166. 

13.  Rude  t?.  Westcott,  130  U.  S.  152,  9 
S.  Ct.  463,  32  L.  ed.  888;  Dobson  v.  Hartford 
Carpet  Co.,  114  U.  S.  439,  5  S.  Ct.  945,  29 
L.  ed.  177;  Black  v.  Thome,  111  U.  S.  122, 

4  S.  Ct.  326,  28  L.  ed.  372;  Canda  17.  Michi- 

[XIII,  C,  12,  b,  (II)] 


1026     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


as  are  due  to  the  patented  improvement,14  and  the  burden  is  on  the  complainant  to 
separate  and  apportion  the  profits  by  reliable  and  tangible  proofs.15     The  profits 


gan  Malleable  Iron  Co.,  152  Fed.  178,  81 
C.  C.  A.  420;  Kansas  City  Hay  Press  Co.  v. 
Devol,  127  Fed.  363;  Paxton  v.  Brinton,  126 
Fed.  541;  Hohorst  v.  Hamburg- American 
Packet  Co.,  91  Fed.  655,  34  C.  C.  A.  39  [af- 
firming 84  Fed.  354] ;  Rose  v.  Hirsh,  91  Fed. 
149;  Hohorst  v.  Hamburg- American  Packet 
Co.,  84  Fed.  354;  Keep  v.  Fuller,  42  Fed/ 
896;  Fischer  v.  Hayes,  39  Fed.  613;  Everest 
v.  Buffalo  Lubricating  Oil  Co.,  31  Fed.  742; 
Roemer  v.  Simon,  31  Fed.  41,  24  Blatchf. 
396;  Tuttle  v.  Gaylord,  28  Fed.  97;  Moffitt 
v.  Cavanagh,  27  Fed.  511;  Blake  v.  Green- 
wood Cemetery,  16  Fed.  676,  21  Blatchf.  222; 
Calkins  v.  Bertrand,  8  Fed.  755,  10  Biss.  445 ; 
Kirby  v.  Armstrong,  5  Fed.  801,  10  Biss.  135; 
Fisk  v.  West  Bradley,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  9  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,830a,  19  Off.  Gaz.  545;  Garretson 
f.  Clark,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,249,  17  Blatchf. 
256  [affirmed  in  111  U.  S.  120,  4  S.  Ct.  291, 
28  L.  ed.  371]  ;  Gould's  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cowing, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,643,  3  Ban.  &  A.  75,  14 
Blatchf.  315,  12  Off.  Gaz.  942  [reversed  on 
other  grounds  in  105  U.  S.  253,  26  L.  ed. 
987] ;  Schillinger  v.  Gunther,  21  Fed.  Cas. 
Xo.  12,457,  3  Ban.  &  A.  491,  15  Blatchf.  303, 
14  Off.  Gaz.  713. 

In  case  of  wilful  infringement  all  doubts 
as  to  amount  of  profits  are  resolved  against 
the  infringer.  Regina  Music  Box  Co.  v.  Otto, 
114  Fed.  505. 

14.  Cincinnati  Siemens-Lungren  Gas  Il- 
luminating Co.  v.  Western  Siemens-Lungren 
Co.,  152  U.  S.  200,  14  S.  Ct.  523,  38  L.  ed. 
411;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Turrill,  94  U.  S. 
695,  24  L.  ed.  238;  Mowry  v.  Whitney,  14 
Wall.  (U.  S.)  620,  20  L.  ed.  860;  Celluloid 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cellonite  Mfg.  Co.,  40  Fed.  476; 
McMurray  v.  Emerson,  36  Fed.  901;  Loco- 
motive Safety  Truck  Co.  v.  Pennsylvania  R. 
Co.,  2  Fed.  677;  Knox  v.  Great  Western 
Quicksilver  Min.  Co.,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,907, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  25,  7  Reporter  325,  6  Sawy.  430, 
14  Off.  Gaz.  897;  Serrell  v.  Collins,  21  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,672,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  289; 
Wetherill  v.  New  Jersey  Zinc  Co.,  29  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,464,  1  Ban.  &  A.  485. 

Where  the  patented  improvement  is  only 
a  part  of  the  machine,  entire  profits  on  the 
machine  are  not  recoverable.  Westinghouse 
v.  New  York  Air  Brake  Co.,  140  Fed.  545,  72 
C.  C.  A.  61 ;  Lattimore  v.  Hardsocg  Mfg.  Co., 
121  Fed.  986,  58  C.  C.  A.  287;  Westinghouse 
v.  New  York  Air  Brake  Co.,  115  Fed.  645; 
Brickill  v.  New  York,  112  Fed.  65,  50  C.  C.  A. 
1;  Fay  v.  Allen,  30  Fed.  446;  Reed  v.  Law- 
rence, 29  Fed.  915;  Calkins  v.  Bertrand,  8 
Fed.  755,  10  Biss.  445;  Brady  v.  Atlantic 
Works,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,795,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
577,  15  Off.  Gaz.  965;  Garretson  v.  Clark,  10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,248,  3  Ban.  &  A.  352,  15 
Blatchf.  70,  14  Off.  Gaz.  485  [affirmed  in  111 
U.  S.  120,  4  S.  Ct.  291,  28  L.  ed.  371]; 
Graham  v.  Mason,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,672,  5 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  290,  Holmes  88,  1  Off.  Gaz. 
609;  Ingels  v.  Mast,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,034, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  24,  1  Flipp.  424,  7  Off.  Gaz.  836; 

[XIII,  C.  12,  b,  (n)] 


Webster  i\  New  Brunswick  Carpet  Co.,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,338,  2  Ban.  &  A.  67,  9  Off. 
Gaz.  203;  Wetherill  v.  New  Jersey  Zinc  Co., 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,464,  1  Ban.  &  A.  485. 
And  see  Canda  v.  Michigan  Malleable  Iron 
Co.,  152  Fed.  178,  81  C.  C.  A.  420. 

Where  sales  of  articles  are  due  solely  to 
the  patented  improvement,  the  entire  profits 
may  be  recovered.  Warren  v.  Keep,  155  U.  S. 
265,  15  S.  Ct.  83,  39  L.  ed.  144;  Crosby 
Steam  Gage,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Consolidated  Safety 
Valve  Co.,  141  U.  S.  441,  12  S.  Ct.  49,  35 
L.  ed.  809  [affirming  44  Fed.  66]  ;  Hurlbut 
V.  Schillinger,  130  U.  S.  456,  9  S.  Ct.  584, 
32  L.  ed.  1011;  Elizabeth  v.  American  Nichol- 
son Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed. 
1000;  Force  v.  Sawyer-Boss  Mfg.  Co.,  131 
Fed.  884;  Westinghouse  v.  New  York  Air 
Brake  Co.,  131  Fed.  607  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  140  Fed.  545,  72  C.  C.  A.  61]  ; 
Penfield  v.  Potts,  126  Fed.  475,  61  C.  C.  A. 
371;  Piaget  Novelty  Co.  v.  Headley,  123  Fed. 
897;  Coddington  v.  Propfe,  112  Fed.  1016; 
Wales  v.  Waterbury  Mfg.  Co.,  101  Fed.  126, 
41  C.  C.  A.  250;  Heaton  Button- Fastener  Co. 
v.  Macdonald,  57  Fed.  648;  Hoke  Engraving 
Plate  Co.  v.  Schraubstadter,  53  Fed.  817; 
Tatum  v.  Gregory,  51  Fed.  446;  Putnam  V. 
Lomax,  9  Fed.  448,  10  Biss.  546;  Carter  v. 
Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512;  Livingston  v.  Jones, 
15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,414,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
207,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330  [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  1  Wall.  155,  17  L.  ed.  662]; 
Ruggles  v.  Eddy,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,116,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  627,  12  Off.  Gaz.  716;  Whitney  v. 
Mowry,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,594,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  207  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  14 
Wall.  620,  20  L.  ed.  860]. 

Where  it  is  shown  that  profits  are  due  to 
the  patented  invention  the  burden  is  on  de- 
fendant to  show  that  part  is  due  to  other 
things.  Elizabeth  v.  American  Nicholson 
Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000; 
Campbell  v.  New  York,  81  Fed.  182;  Tuttle 
v.  Claflin,  76  Fed.  227,  22  C.  C.  A.  138; 
Morss  v.  Union  Form  Co.,  39  Fed.  468 ;  Fitch 
v.  Bragg,  16  Fed.  243,  21  Blatchf.  302; 
American  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Eliza- 
beth, 1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  309,  1  Ban.  &  A.  439, 
6  Off.  Gaz.  764  [modified  in  97  U.  S.  126, 
24  L.  ed.  1000] ;  Carter  v.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,472,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512.» 

15.  Complainant  must  show  how  much  of 
the  profits  is  due  to  the  patented  part  of  the 
infringing  machine.  Garretson  v.  Clark,  111 
U.  S.  120,  4  S.  Ct.  291,  28  L.  ed.  371;  Robert- 
son v.  Blake,  94  U.  S.  728,  24  L.  ed.  245; 
Westinghouse  v.  New  York  Air  Brake  Co., 
140  Fed.  545,  72  C.  C.  A.  61;  Brinton  v. 
Paxton,  134  Fed.  78,  67  C.  C.  A.  204;  Kansas 
City  Hay  Press  Co.  t?.  Devol,  127  Fed.  363; 
Crane  Co.  v.  Baker,  125  Fed.  1,  60  C.  C.  A. 
138  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  138  Fed. 
60,  70  C.  C.  A.  486];  Elgin  Wind  Power, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Nichols,  105  Fed.  780,  45  C.  C.  A. 
49;  Robbins  v.  Illinois  Watch  Co.,  81  Fed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1027 


which  resulted  from  the  infringement  consist  of  the  saving  or  advantage  in  the 
use  of  the  patented  improvement  as  compared  with  other  old  substitutes.16 
In  determining  profits  all  legitimate  expenses  of  manufacture  and  sale  are  to  be 
deducted  from  the  selling  price,17  but  not  taxes,  insurance,  and  interest  upon 


957,  27  C.  C.  A.  21  [affirming  78  Fed.  124]  ; 
Williames  v.  McNeely,  77  Fed.  894;  Tuttle 
v.  Claflin,  62  Fed.  453  {reversed  on  other 
grounds  in  76  Fed.  227,  22  C.  C.  A.  138]; 
Heaton  Button-Fastener  Co.  v.  Macdonald,  57 
Fed.  648;  Mosher  v.  Joyce,  45  Fed.  205  [af- 
firmed in  51  Fed.  441,  2  C.  C.  A.  322]; 
Roeiner  v.  Simon,  31  Fed.  41,  24  Blatchf. 
396;  Fay  v.  Allen,  30  Fed.  446;  Willimantic 
Thread  Co.  v.  Clark  Thread  Co.,  27  Fed.  865 ; 
Bostock  v.  Goodrich,  25  Fed.  819;  Kirby  v. 
Armstrong,  5  Fed.  801,  10  Biss.  135 ;  Black  V. 
Munson,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,463,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
623,  14  Blatchf.  265  [affirmed  in  111  U.  S. 
122,  4  S.  Ct.  326,  28  L.  ed.  372]  ;  Gould's 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cowing,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,642, 

1  Ban.  &  A.  375,  12  Blatchf.  243,  8  Off.  Gaz. 
277;  Ingersoil  v.  Musgrove,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,040,  3  Ban.  &  A.  304,   14  Blatchf.  541,  13 
Off.  Gaz.  966;  Star  Salt  Caster  Co.  v.  Cross- 
man,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.   13,320,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
566. 

16.  New  York  Bank  Note  Co.  v.  Hamilton 
Bank    Note   Engraving,   etc.,    Co.,    28    N.    Y. 
App.  Div.  411,  50  N.  Y.  Suppl.  1093  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  180  N.  Y.  280,  73  N.  E. 
48] ;    McCreary    v.    Pennsylvania    Canal   Co., 
141   U.   S.  459,   12  S.  Ct.   40,  35  L.  ed.  817 
[affirming  5  Fed.  367]  ;  Dotem  v.  Boston,  138 
Fed.  406,  70  C.  C.  A.  308;  Rose  v.  Hirsh,  91 
Fed.   149;   Webster  Loom  Co.  v.  Higgins,  43 
Fed.  673;  Coupe  v.  Weatherhead,  37  Fed.  16; 
Vulcanite  Paving  Co.  v.  American  Artificial 
Stone  Pavement  Co.,  36  Fed.  378 ;  Tomkinson 
v.  Willets   Mfg.   Co.,  34   Fed.  536*;    Shannon 
V.    Bruner,    33    Fed.    871;    Turrill  v.   Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  20  Fed.  912;   Maier  v.  Brown, 
17  Fed.  736;   Faulks  v.  Kamp,  10  Fed.  675; 
Knox  1?.  Great  Western  Quicksilver  Min.  Co., 
14  Fed.  Cas.  No.   7,907,  4  Ban.  &  A.  25,   7 
Reporter  325,  6  Sawy.  430,  14  Off.  Gaz.  897; 
Mulford  v.   Pearce,    17   Fed.  Cas.   No.   9,908, 

2  Ban.  &  A.  542,  14  Blatchf.  141,  11  Off.  Gaz. 
741    [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  102  U.  S. 
112,  26  L.  ed.  93] ;  Sargent  v.  Yale  Lock  Mfg. 
Co.,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,367,  4  Ban.  &  A.  579, 
17  Blatchf.  249,   17  Off.  Gaz.  106;  Tilghman 
v.    Mitchell,    23    Fed.    Cas.    No.     14,041,     9 
Blatchf.  1,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  599;  Turrill  v. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,272, 
5  Biss.  344  [reversed  in  part  in  94  U.  S.  695, 
24  L.  ed.  238]. 

An  improvement  upon  the  patented  ma- 
chine by  the  infringer  does  not  relieve  him 
from  liability  but  profits  may  be  apportioned. 
Tuttle  v.  Claflin,  76  Fed.  227,  22  C.  C.  A. 
138;  Carter  v.  Baker,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,472, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512;  Steam 
Stonecutter  Co.  v.  Windsor  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,335,  4  Ban.  &  A.  445,  17  Blatchf. 
24.  Compare  Graham  v.  Mason,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,672,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  290,  Holmes  88, 
1  Off.  Gaz.  609. 

17.  Actual    cost    of    making    and    selling 


articles  should  be  deducted  in  determining 
profits,  and  this  includes  wages,  rent,  adver- 
tising, etc.  Goulds  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cowing,  105* 
U.  S.  253,  26  L.  ed.  987 ;  Piaget  Novelty  Co. 
v.  Headley,  123  Fed.  897;  Zane  v.  Peck,  13 
Fed.  475;  American  Saw  Co.  v.  Emerson,  8 
Fed.  806;  La  Baw  v.  Hawkins,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,961,  2  Ban.  &  A.  561;  Steam  Stone- 
cutter Co.  v.  Windsor  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,335,  4  Ban.  &  A.  445,  17  Blatchf.  24; 
Troy  Iron,  etc.,  Factory  v.  Corning,  24  Fed*- 
Cas.  No.  14,196,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  497,  6- 
Blatchf.  328. 

Commissions  to  agents  are  deducted  but 
must  be  shown  by  defendant.  Kissinger-Ison 
Co.  v.  Bradford  Belting  Co.,  123  Fed.  91,  59 
C.  C.  A.  221. 

Apportionment  of  running  expenses. —  Run- 
ning expenses  will  be  apportioned  between 
infringing  article  and  other  business.  Kinner 
v.  Shepard,  118  Fed.  48;  Hitchcock  v.  Tre- 
maine,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,539,  5  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  310,  9  Blatchf.  385  [affirmed  in  23  Wall. 
518,  23  L.  ed.  97]. 

Allowance  made  and  deducted  for  use  of 
shop  and  tools  see  Steam  Stonecutter  Co.  v. 
Windsor  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,335, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  445,  17  Blatchf.  24;  Troy  Iron, 
etc.,  Factory  v.  Corning,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,196,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  497,  6  Blatchf.  328. 

Loss  on  entire  business  or  upon  particular 
articles  will  not  be  deducted  from  profits  of 
infringing  article.  Force  v.  Sawyer-Boss  Mfg. 
Co.,  131  Fed.  884;  Conover  v.  Mers,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,122,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  506,  11 
Blatchf.  197 ;  Graham  v.  Mason,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,672,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  290,  Holmes 
88,  1  Off.  Gaz.  609;  Steam  Stonecutter  Co. 
v.  Windsor  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,335, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  445,  17  Blatchf.  24. 

Manufacturers'  profits. —  No  deduction  is 
made  for  ordinary  "  manufacturers'  profits." 
Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  788,  19  L.  ed.  566;  National  Folding- 
Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elsas,  86  Fed.  917,  30  C.  C.  A. 
487.  Contra,  Hammacher  v.  Wilson,  32  Fed. 
796. 

Cost  of  experiments  will  be  deducted. 
Crosby  Steam  Gage,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Consolidated 
Safety  Valve  Co.,  141  U.  S.  441,  12  S.  Ct. 
49,  35  L.  ed.  809  [affirming  44  Fed.  66]. 

Infringement  of  other  patents. —  Where  a 
part  of  a  machine  made  and  sold  by  de- 
fendant is  found  to  infringe  complainant's 
patent,  the  court  will  not  undertake  to  de- 
termine, in  reduction  of  damages,  the  col- 
lateral question  whether  or  not  such  part 
also  infringes  another  patent,  the  validity 
and  scope  of  which  are  not  directly  put  in 
issue.  Brinton  v.  Paxton,  134  Fed.  78,  67 
C.  C.  A.  204. 

Royalty  under  other  patents  will  be  de- 
ducted. La  Baw  v.  Hawkins,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,961,  2  Ban.  &  A.  561. 

[XIII,  C,  12,  b,  (II)] 


1028     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


money  invested  in  the  manufacturing  plant,13  nor  compensation  for  personal  serv- 
ices.19 So  it  has  been  held  that  only  losses  occurring  concurrently  with  the  mak- 
ing of  profits  and  directly  resulting  from  the  particular  transactions  on  which  the 
profits  are  allowed  may  be  considered  in  diminution  of  profits.20  It  has  been  held 
that  interest  on  profits  should  not  be  allowed  except  under  special  circumstances.21 
It  is  very  generally  held  that  if  allowed,  interest  commences  to  run  from  the 
date  of  the  master's  report.22  Damages  are  estimated  as  in  actions  at  law,23 


18.  Seabury  v.  Am  Ende,  152  U.  S.  561,  14 
S.  Ct.  683,  38  L.  ed.  553   [affirming  43  Fed. 
672] ;   Providence  Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9 
Wall.    (U.    S.)    788,    19   L.    ed.    566;    Piaget 
Novelty  Co.  v.  Headley,    123   Fed.   897;   Na- 
tional Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dayton  Paper- 
Novelty  Co.,  95  Fed.  991;  Steam  Stonecutter 
Co.  v.   Windsor   Mfg.   Co.,  22   Fed.   Cas.  No. 

13.335,  4  Ban.  &  A.  445,  17  Blatchf.  24. 
Only  where  interest  is  actually  paid  will 

it  be  allowed.    Herring  v.  Gage,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,422,  3  Ban.  &  A.  396,  15  Blatchf.  124. 

19.  Nothing  is  to  be  deducted  from  profits 
for  the  personal  services  or  salary  of  defend- 
ant or  of  officers  of  the  company.     Seabury  v. 
Am  Ende,   152  U.  S.  561,   14  S.  Ct.  683,  38 
L.  ed.  553  [affirming  43  Fed.  672]  ;  Elizabeth 
v.  American  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S. 
126,  24  L.  ed.  1000;  Kansas  City  Hay  Press 
Co.  v.  Devol,  127  Fed.  363;  Piper  v.  Brown, 
19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,181,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  240, 
Holmes    196,    3    Off.    Gaz.    97;    Williams    v. 
Leonard,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,726,  9  Blatchf. 
476,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  381.     Contra,  National 
Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dayton  Paper-Nov- 
elty Co.,  95  Fed.  991;  Steam  Stonecutter  Co. 
v.  Windsor  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,335, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  445,  17  Blatchf.  24. 

20.  Canda  v.  Michigan  Malleable  Iron  Co., 
152  Fed.  178,  81  C.  C.  A.  420. 

21.  Parks  v.  Booth,  102  U.  S.  96,  26  L.  ed. 
54;  Littlefield  v.  Perry,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  205, 
22  L.  ed.  577 ;  Graham  v.  Piano  Mfg.  Co.,  35 
Fed.   597;   Brady  v.   Atlantic  Works,  3  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  1,795,  3  Ban.  &  A.  577,  15  Off.  Gaz. 
965;    Holbrook   v.    Small,    12    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
6,596,  3  Ban.  &  A.  625,  17  Off.  Gaz.  55. 

22.  Crosby  Steam  Gage,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Con- 
solidated Safety  Valve  Co.,  141  U.  S.  441,  12 
S.   Ct.   49,  35  L.  ed.  809    [affirming  44   Fed. 
66]  ;  Tilghman  v.  Proctor,  125  U.  S.  136,  8 
S.  Ct.  894,  31  L.  ed.  664;  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co. 
v.  Tun-ill,  110  U.  S.  301,  4  S.  Ct.  5,  28  L.  ed. 
154 ;   Westinghouse  v.  New  York  Air  Brake 
Co.,  133  Fed.  936;  Campbell  v.  New  York,  105 
Fed.  631;  National  Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Dayton  Paper-Novelty  Co.,  97  Fed.  331 ;  Tur- 
rill    v.   Illinois    Cent.    R.    Co.,    20    Fed.    912. 
Compare  American  Nicholson   Pavement  Co. 
v.  Elizabeth,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  309,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
439,  6  Off.  Gaz.  764    (interest  allowed  from 
final  decree)  ;  Steam  Stonecutter  Co.  v.  Wind- 
sor Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,335,  4  Ban. 
&  A.  445,   17  Blatchf.  24,  22  Fed.   Cas.  No. 

13.336,  5  Ban.  &  A.  335,  18  Blatchf.  47    (in- 
terest   allowed    from    interlocutory    decree)  ; 
Webster   t>.   New   Brunswick   Carpet   Co.,    29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,338,  2  Ban.  &  A.  67,  9  Off. 
Gaz.  203  (interest  allowed  from  final  decree). 

Filing  bill. —  Interest  is  not  allowed  from 

[XIII,  C,  12,  b.  (II)] 


the  filing  of  the  bill.  National  Folding-Box, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Elsas,  81  Fed.  197. 

23.  The  loss  to  plaintiff  by  the  infringe- 
ment constitutes  the  damages  to  be  recovered. 
See  supra,  XIII,  C,  12,  a,  (n). 

Profits  which  plaintiff  would  have  made  on 
infringing  sales  are  recoverable.  Westing- 
house  v.  New  York  Air  Brake  Co.,  131  Fed. 
607  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  140  Fed. 
545];  Creamer  v.  Bowers,  35  Fed.  206;  Well- 
ing v.  La  Bau,  34  Fed.  40;  Blake  v.  Green- 
wood Cemetery,  16  Fed.  676,  21  Blatchf.  222; 
Zane  v.  Peck,  13  Fed.  475. 

Showing  sales  except  for  infringement. — 
To  recover  as  damages  any  part  of  the  profits 
he  would  have  made  on  the  infringing  sales, 
plaintiff  must  show  that  he  would  have  made 
the  sales  except  for  the  infringer.  Dobson 
v.  Dorman,  118  U.  S.  10,  6  S.  Ct.  946,  30 
L.  ed.  63 ;  Jennings,  v.  Rogers  Silver-Plate 
Co.,  105  Fed.  967;  Tatum  v.  Gregory,  51 
Fed.  446;  Covert  v.  Sargent,  38  Fed.  237 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  152  U.  S.  516, 
14  S.  Ct.  676,  38  L.  ed.  536]  ;  Bell  v.  U.  S. 
Stamping  Co.,  32  Fed.  549 ;  Comely  v.  Marck- 
wald,  32  Fed.  292,  23  Blatchf.  163  [affirmed 
in  131  U.  S.  159,  9  S.  Ct.  744,  33  L.  ed.  117]  ; 
McSherry  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Dowagiac  Mfg.  Co.,  160 
Fed.  948;  Hall  v.  Stern,  20  Fed.  788;  Buerk  v. 
Imhaeuser  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,107,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
452,  14  Blatchf.  19,  10  Off.  Gaz.  907;  Inger- 
soll  v.  Musgrove,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,040,  3 
Ban.  &  A.  304,  14  Blatchf.  541,  13  Off.  Gaz. 
966;  St.  Louis  Stamping  Co.  v.  Quimby,  21 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,240a,  5  Ban.  &  A.  275,  18 
Off.  Gaz.  571. 

Counsel  fees  are  not  recoverable.  Bancroft 
v.  Acton,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  833,  7  Blatchf.  505. 

Damages  after  suit  may  be  recovered,  al- 
though none  were  proved  before.  Canton 
Steel  Roofing  Co.  v.  Kanneberg,  51  Fed.  599. 

Entire  profits  on  infringing  article  are  re- 
coverable, providing  the  evidence  is  sufficient 
to  prove  that  the  marketable  value  of  the 
article  is  due  solely  to  the  patented  feature. 
Westinghouse  v.  New  York  Air  Brake  Co., 
140  Fed.  545,  72  C.  C.  A.  61. 

Reduction  in  price  due  to  the  infringement 
is  an  item  to  be  considered  in  estimating 
damages  (Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sargent,  117 
U.  S.  536,  6  S.  Ct.  934,  29  L.  ed.  954  [affirm- 
ing 21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,366,  4  Ban.  &  A.  574, 
17  Blatchf.  244,  17  Off.  Gaz.  105] ;  Kinner  v. 
Shepard,  107  Fed.  952;  Am  Ende  v.  Seabury, 
43  Fed.  672;  Hobbie  v.  Smith,  27  Fed.  656; 
Fitch  v.  Bragg,  16  Fed.  243,  21  Blatchf.  302)  ; 
but  must  be  clearly  shown  to  be  due  to  the 
infringement  (Boesch  v.  Graff,  133  U.  S.  697, 
10  S.  Ct  378,  33  L.  ed.  787  [reversing  33 
Fed.  279,  13  Sawy.  17];  Comely  v.  Marck- 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1029 


and  it  has  been  held  that  the  court  may  allow  complainant  double  or  treble 
damages.24 

13.  PLEADINGS25  —  a.  In  Actions  at  Law  —  (i)  IN  GENERAL.  The  pleadings  in 
actions  at  law  must  conform  to  the  rules  of  the  courts  of  the  state  where  brought,26 
except  as  modified  by  statute,27  providing  the  general  issue  may  be  pleaded, 
and  that  on  giving  notice  certain  special  matters  of  defense  may  be  proved.28 
Oyer  of  the  patent  cannot  be  demanded.29 

(n)  DECLARATION  OR  COMPLAINT.  The  declaration  must  embody  all  that  is 
essential  to  enable  plaintiff  to  give  evidence  of  his  right  and  of  its  violation  by 
defendant  and  afford  defendant  the  opportunity  to  interpose  every  defense  allowed 
him  by  law,30  but  critical  and  over-nice  objections  to  matters  of  form  will  not  be 
sustained.31 

(in)  PLEA  OR  ANSWER  —  (A)  In  General.  By  virtue  of  express  statutory 
provision,32  in  any  action  for  infringement,  defendant  may  plead  the  general  issue, 
and  having  given  thirty  days'  notice  in  writing  may  prove  any  one  or  more  of 
several  special  defenses  therein  enumerated.83  He  may  show  without  notice  the 


wald,  131  U.  S.   159,  9  S.  Ct.  744,  33  L.  ed. 
117). 

24.  Equity  may  allow  increased  or  exem- 
plary damages  in  an  aggravated  case.    Fox  ?;. 
Knickerbocker  Engraving  Co.,   158  Fed.  422; 
National  Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Elsas,  86  Fed. 
917,  30  C.  C.  A.  487  [affirming  81  Fed.  197]; 
Stutz  v.  Armstrong,  25  Fed.  147;  Graham  v. 
Geneva  Lake  Crawford  Mfg.  Co.,  24  Fed.  642 ; 
Goodyear  Dental  Vulcanite  Co.  v.  Van  Ant- 
werp,  10  Fed.   Cas.  No.   5,600,  2   Ban.  &  A. 
252,   9  Off.   Gaz.   497;   Parker  v.  Corbin,    18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,731,  4  McLean  462,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  736.    See  also  supra,  XIII,  C,  12,  a, 

(II),    (D). 

Under  the  act  of  1836,  equity  could  not 
award  exemplarv  damages.  Livingston  v. 
Jones,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,414,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  207,  3  Wall.  Jr.  330;  Motte  v.  Bennett, 
17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,884,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  642; 
Sanders  v.  Logan,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,295, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  167,  2  Pittsb.  (Pa.)  241. 

Profits  cannot  be  increased  in  equity  but 
only  damages  such  as  might  have  been  al- 
lowed at  law.  Covert  v.  Sargent,  42  Fed. 
298;  Campbell  v.  James,  5  Fed.  806;  Hoi- 
brook  v.  Small,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,596,  3 
Ban.  &  A.  6253  17  Off.  Gaz.  55. 

25.  See,  generally,  PLEADING. 

26.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   914    [U.   S. 
Comp.    St.    (1901)    p.    684];    Celluloid   Mfg. 
Co.  v.  American  Zylonite  Co.,   34  Fed.  744; 
Cottier  v.  Stimson,  18  Fed.  689,  9  Sawy.  435. 

27.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4920. 

28.  Myers  v.   Sternheim,   97    Fed.   625,    38 
C.  C.  A.  345;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  American 
Zylonite   Co.,  34  Fed.   744.     See  also  Myers 
v.    Cunningham,    14    Fed.    346.       See    infra, 
XIII,  C,  13,  a,  (m),  (B). 

29.  Singer    v.    Wilson,    22    Fed.  *  Cas.    No. 
12,901 ;  Smith  v.  Ely,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,043, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  339,  5  McLean  76.     Contra, 
Cutting  v.  Myers,   6   Fed.   Cas.   No.  3,520,    1 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.   94,  4  Wash.   220. 

Reference  to  patent  makes  it  part  of  com- 
plaint. Graham  v.  Earl,  82  Fed.  737 ;  Wilder 
v.  McCormick,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,650,  2 
Blatchf.  31,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  128. 

30.  Gray  v.  James,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,719, 


1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  140,  Pet.  C.  C.  476;  Wilder 
v.  McCormick,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,650,  1 
Blatchf.  597,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  128.  See  infra, 
XIII,  C,  13,  b,  (i). 

The  preliminary  steps  leading  to  grant  of 
patent  need  not  be  specifically  alleged.  Cut- 
ting v.  Myers,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,520,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  159,  4  Wash.  220;  Van  Hook  v. 
Wood,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,854;  Wilder  v. 
McCormick,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,650,  2 
Blatchf.  31,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  128. 

Facts  as  to  damage  and  not  evidence 
must  be  alleged,  so  that  there  may  be  an 
issue.  Rude  v.  Wescott,  130  U.  S.  152,  9 
S.  Ct.  463,  32  L.  ed.  888;  Ewart  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Baldwin  Cycle-Chain  Co.,  91  Fed.  262. 

Marking  goods. —  It  must  be  alleged  that 
plaintiff  marked  his  goods  under  the  patent 
with  the  word  "patented."  Streat  v.  Finch, 
154  Fed.  378 ;  Sprague  v.  Bramhall-Deane  Co., 
133  Fed.  738. 

Where  the  patent  contains  numerous 
claims,  the  ones  relied  on  must  be  specified. 
Russell  v.  Winchester  Repeating  Arms  Co., 
97  Fed.  634. 

Infringement  within  six  years  need  not  be 
alleged.  Defendant  may  show  that  the  in- 
fringement was  not  within  six  years  under 
the  general  issue.  Peters  v.  Hanger,  134  Fed. 
586,  67  C.  C.  A.  386. 

The  question  of  the  validity  of  a  patent 
on  its  face  may  be  raised  by  demurrer  in  an 
action  at  law  for  its  infringement.  Thomas 
v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  149  Fed.  753,  79 
C.  C.  A.  89. 

31.  May  v.  Mercer  County,  30  Fed.  246; 
Gray   v.    James,    10   Fed.    Cas.   No.   5,719,    1 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.    140,  Pet.  C.  C.  476;  Parker 
v.  Haworth,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,738,  4  Mc- 
Lean 370,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  725;  Van  Hook 
v.  Wood,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,854;  Wilder  v. 
McCormick,     29     Fed.    Cas.    No.     17,650,     1 
Blatchf.  31.  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  128. 

32.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4920. 

33.  Bates   ?;.   Coe,   98  U.  S.   31,  25  L.  ed. 
68;  Teese  v.  Huntingdon,  23  How.   (U.  S.)   2, 
16  L.  ed.  479;  Henry  v.  U.  S.,  22  Ct.  Cl.  75. 

Want  of  patentability  need  not  be  specially 
pleaded.  Richards  v.  Chase  Elevator  Co.,  158 

[XIII,  C,  13,  a,  (in),  (A)] 


1030     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


prior  state  of  the  art,34  or  that  the  patent  is  void  on  its  face.85  As  the  statute 
mentioned  is  permissive  merely  it  does  not  prevent  special  pleas  under  ordinary 
rules.36  And,  where  defenses  are  specially  pleaded  which  might  be  shown  under 
the  general  issues,  no  notice  is  necessary.87  However,  if  notice  of  special  matter 
of  defense  is  given,  a  plea  covering  the  same  matter  cannot  be  filed.88  The 
question  of  fraud  can  be  raised  only  by  distinct  and  special  allegations  in  the  plea 
or  answer.39 

(B)  Notice  of  Special  Matter  of  Defense.  The  special  matters  of  defense 
covered  by  statute40  cannot  be  proved  unless  notice  is  given  in  accordance  with 
the  terms  of  the  statute,41  or  unless  it  is  waived.42  The  notice  must  be  definite 
and  certain  as  to  name,  place,  and  subject-matter,43  and  must  be  given  thirty 


U.  S.  299,  15  S.  Ct.  831,  39  L.  ed.  991;  May 
v.  Juneau  County,  137  U.  S.  408,  11  8.  Ct. 
102,  34  L.  ed.  729;  Hendy  v.  Golden  State, 
etc.,  Iron  Works,  127  U.  S.  370,  8  S.  Ct.  1275, 

32  L.  ed.  207;  Zane  v.  Soffe,  110  U.  S.  200,  3 
S.  Ct.  562,  28  L.  ed.   119. 

Any  special  matter  showing  that  the  pat- 
ent is  invalid  may  be  proved.  U.  S.  Rev.  St. 
(1878)  §  4920;  Brown  v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37, 

33  L.  ed.  200;  Baldwin  v.  Kresl,  76  Fed.  823, 
22  C.  C.  A.  593 ;  Woodward  v.  Boston  Lasting 
Mach.    Co.,   63    Fed.   609,    11    C.    C.   A.   353; 
Evans   v.    Eaton,   8    Fed.    Cas.    No.    4,559,    1 
Robb  Pat.  Cas.  68,  Pet.  C.   C.  322;   Kneass 
v.   Schuylkill  Bank,   14  Fed.  Cas.  No.   7,875, 
1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  303,  4  Wash.  C.  C.  9. 

Statute  of  limitations. —  Under  general  is- 
sue may  show  infringement  more  than  six 
years  before  suit.  Peters  v.  Hanger,  134 
Fed.  586,  67  C.  C.  A.  386  [reversing^  127 
Fed.  820,  62  C.  C.  A.  498]. 

That  proofs  are  confined  to  matter  in  notice 
see  Lyon  v.  Donaldson,  34  Fed.  789. 

Separate  defenses. —  Where  several  patents 
sued  on  may  give  separate  defense  for  each. 
Kelleher  v.  Darling,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,653, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  438,  4  Cliff.  424,  14  Off.  Gaz. 
673. 

For  insufficient  pleas  see  Agawam  Woolen 
Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall.  (U.  S.)  583,  19  L.  ed. 
177;  Brickill  v.  Hartford,  57  Fed.  216;  Kelle- 
her v.  Darling,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,653,  3 
Ban.  &  A.  438,  4  Cliff.  424,  14  Off.  Gaz.  673 ; 
Root  v.  Ball,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,035,  4  Mc- 
Lean 177,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  513;  Wheeler  v. 
McConnick,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,498,  8 
Blatchf.  267,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  433. 

For  pleas  sustained  as  sufficient  see  Na- 
tional Mfg.  Co.  v.  Meyers,  7  Fed.  355;  Blake 
v.  Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,504,  6  Blatchf. 
195,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  294.  Under  the  Eng- 
lish practice  monopoly  cannot  be  set  up  as 
a  defense  to  the  general  issue  (Gillett  v. 
Wilby,  9  C.  &  P.  334,  38  E.  C.  L.  201),  nor 
fraudulent  evasion  of  patent  (Stead  v.  An- 
derson, 4  C.  B.  806,  11  Jur.  877,  16  L.  J.  C.  P. 
250,  56  E.  C.  L.  806). 

34.  Vance  v.  Campbell,  1  Black  (U.  S.) 
427,  17  L.  ed.  168;  Parsons  v.  Seelye,  100 
Fed.  452,  40  C.  C.  A.  484 ;  Overweight  Counter- 
balance Elevator  Co.  v.  Improved  Order  Red 
Men's  Hall  Assoc.,  94  Fed.  155,  36  C.  C.  A. 
125;  Kennedy  v.  Solar  Refining  Co.,  69  Fed. 
715;  Stevenson  v.  Magowan,  31  Fed.  824; 
La  Baw  v.  Hawkins,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,960, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  428,  6  Off.  Gaz.  724. 

[XIII,  C,  13,  a,  (m),  (A)] 


35.  Kneass    v.    Schuylkill    Bank,    14    Fed. 
Cas.    No.    7,875,    1    Robb    Pat.    Cas.    303,    4 
Wash.  9. 

36.  Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Pet.  (U.  S.)  218, 
8  L.  ed.  376. 

37.  Brickill  v.  Hartford,  57  Fed.  216;  Cot- 
tier v.  Stimson,  20  Fed.  906 ;  Cottier  v.  Stim- 
son,  18  Fed.  689,  9  Sawy.  435;   Day  v.  New 
England    Car-Spring    Co.,    7    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
3,687,  3  Blatchf.  179;   Root  v.  Ball,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,035,  4  McLean  177,  2  Robb  Pat. 
Cas.  513. 

38.  Latta  v.  Shawk,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,116, 
1  Bond  259,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465;   Read  v. 
Miller,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,610,  2  Biss.  12,  3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  310. 

39.  Blake  v.  Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,504, 

6  Blatchf.  195,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  294;  Clark 
v.  Scott,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,833,  9  Blatchf.  301, 
5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  245,  2  Off.  Gaz.  4;  Doughty 
v.  West,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,029,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  553;  Gear  v.  Grosvenor,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,291,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  314,  Holmes  215,  3 
Off.  Gaz.  380. 

In  England  he  may  plead  patent  fraudu- 
lently obtained.  Bedells  v.  Massey,  8  Jur. 
808,  13  L.  J.  C.  P.  173,  7  M.  &  G.  630,  8 
Scott  N.  R.  337,  49  E.  C.  L.  630. 

40.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4920. 

41.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Stimpson, 
14  Pet.   (U.  S.)   448,  10  L.  ed.  535;  Grant  v. 
Raymond,  6  Pet.    (U.  S.)    218,  8  L.  ed.  376; 
Arrott  v.    Standard   Sanitary  Mfg.   Co.,    113 
Fed.    389;    Kiesele    v.    Haas,    32    Fed.    794; 
Bragg  v.  Stockton,  27  Fed.  509;  Coleman  v. 
Liesor,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,984 ;  Dixon  v.  Moyer, 

7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,931,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  324, 
4  Wash.  68;   Roberts  v.  Buck,  20   Fed.   Cas. 
No.    11,897,   Holmes    224,    6    Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
325,  3  Off.  Gaz.  268. 

Patents  and  publications  not  admitted  with- 
out notice.  Earl  v.  Dexter,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,242,  1  Ban.  &  A.  400,  Holmes  412,  6  Off. 
Gaz.  729 ;  Odiorne  v.  Denney,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,431,  3  Ban.  &  A.  287,  13  Off.  Gaz.  965,  1 
N.  J.  L.  J.  183. 

42.  Crouch  v.  Speer,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,438, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  145,  6  Off.  Gaz.  187;  Roemer  v. 
Simon,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,997,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
138,  5  Off.  Gaz.  555  [affirmed  in  95  U.  S.  214, 
24  L.  ed.  384]. 

43.  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.    (U.  S.) 
516,   20   L.   ed.   33;    Wise   v.    Allis,    9    Wall. 
(U.  S.)   737,  19  L.  ed.  784;  Agawam  Woolen 
Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall.   (U.  S.)   583,  19  L.  ed. 
177;  Teese  v.  Huntingdon,  23  How.    (U.  S.) 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     1031 


days  before  trial.44     It  may  be  given  in  the  answer45  and  need  not  be  under 
oath.43 

b.  In   Suits  in   Equity47  —  (i)  BILL.     The   bill  or  complaint  should  clearly 
identify  the  invention  claimed  in  the  patent,48  should  allege  ownership  thereof,49 


2,  16  L.  ed.  479;  Silsby  v.  Foote,  14  How. 
(U.  S.)  218,  14  L.  ed.  394;  Tatum  v.  Eby,  60 
Fed.  408;  Orr  v.  Merrill,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,591,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  331,  1  Woodb.  &  M. 
376. 

Names  and  residences  of  prior  users  must 
be  given,  but  not  necessarily  the  names  of 
witnesses  by  whom  allegation  is  to  be  estab- 
lished. Woodbury  Patent  Planing  Mach.  Co. 
v.  Keith,  101  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed.  939;  Allis 
v.  Buckstaff,  13  Fed.  879;  Judson  v.  Cope,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  615;  Lock  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  15 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,438;  Many  v.  Jagger,  16 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,055,  1  Blatchf.  372,  Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  222;  Wilton  v.  Railroads,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,857,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  641,  1 
Wall.  Jr.  192. 

Use  by  others  in  addition  to  those  men- 
tioned in  the  notice  may  be  proved.  Evans 
v.  Eaton,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559,  Pet.  C.  C. 
322,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  68;  Evans  v.  Kremer, 
8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,565,  Pet.  C.  C.  215,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  66;  Treadwell  v.  Bladen,  24  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  14,154,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  531,  4 
Wash.  703. 

Time  of  use  need  not  be  specified.  Phillips 
v.  Page,  24  How.  (U.  S.)  164,  16  L.  ed.  639. 

Place  of  use  must  be  stated  specifically  and 
not  merely  the  county  or  city.  Schenck  v. 
Diamond  Match  Co.,  77  Fed.  208,  23  C.  C.  A. 
122  [affirming  71  Fed.  521]  ;  Hays  v.  Sulsor, 
11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,271,  1  Bond  279,  1  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  532;  Latta  v.  Shawk,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  8,116,  1  Bond  259,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  465. 

Defense. —  Each  defense  must  be  specified 
in  notice.  Meyers  v.  Busby,  32  Fed.  670,  13 
Sawy.  33. 

Notices  held  sufficient  see  Anderson  v.  Mil- 
ler, 129  U.  S.  70,  9  S.  Ct.  224,  32  L.  ed.  635 ; 
Saunders  v.  Allen,  60  Fed.  610,  9  C.  C.  A. 
157;  American  Hide,  etc.,  Splitting,  etc., 
Mach.  Co.  v.  American  Tool,  etc.,  Co.,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  302,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  284,  Holmes 
503;  Smith  v.  Frazer,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,048, 
5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  543,  2  Off.  Gaz.  175,  3 
Pittsb.  (Pa.)  397. 

44.  Brunswick  v.  Holzalb,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,057;  Westlake  v.  Cartter,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
17,451,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  519,  4  Off.  Gaz.  636. 

45.  Bates  v.   Coe,  98  U.   S.   31,   25  L.  ed. 
68;    Arrott  v.   Standard    Sanitary   Mfg.    Co., 
113  Fed.  389;  Smith  V.  Frazer,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,048,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  543,  2  Off.  Gaz. 
175,  3  Pittsb.    (Pa.)    397. 

Plea  stricken  out  is  not  notice.  Foote  v. 
Silsby,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,916,  1  Blatchf.  445, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  268  [affirmed  in  14  How. 
218,  14  L.  ed.  394]. 

46.  Campbell  v.  New  York,  45  Fed.  243. 

47.  Form  and  requisites  of  bill  have  been 
settled  by  numerous  decisions  and  the  prac- 
tice can  only  be  changed  by  an  amendment  of 
the  equity  rules,  or  of  the  rules  of  the  cir- 


cuit courts.  American  Graphophone  Co.  v. 
National  Phonograph  Co.,  127  Fed.  349. 

43.  Wise  v.  Grand  Ave.  R.  Co.,  33  Fed. 
277;  Noe  v.  Prentice,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,284«;  Peterson  v.  Wooden,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,038,  3  McLean  248,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
116. 

Identification  held  insufficient.—  Title  of  in- 
vention and  date  and  number  of  patent  not 
sufficient  identification.  Welsbach  Light  Co. 
v.  Rex  Incandescent  Light  Co.,  87  Fed.  477; 
Electrolibration  Co.  v.  Jackson,  52  Fed.  773; 
Stirrat  v.  Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.,  44  Fed.  142; 
Post  v.  T.  C.  Richards  Hardware  Co.,  25  Fed. 
905. 

Identification  held  sufficient. —  General  ref- 
erence to  the  invention  with  profert  of  the 
patent  is  sufficient  identification  and  places 
patent  before  the  court.  Edison  v.  American 
Mutoscope,  etc.,  Co.,  127  Fed.  361;  Fowler  v. 
New  York,  121  Fed.  747,  58  C.  C.  A.  113  [af- 
firming 110  Fed.  749];  Chinnock  v.  Paterson, 
etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  110  Fed.  199  [decree  reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  112  Fed.  531,  50  C.  C.  A. 
384]  :  Hea ton-Peninsular  Button- Fastener  Co. 
v.  Schlochtermeyer,  72  Fed.  520,  18  C.  C.  A. 
674  [affirming  69  Fed.  592]  ;  Germain  v.  Wil- 
gus,  67  Fed.  597,  14  C.  C.  A.  561 ;  Enterprise 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Snow,  67  Fed.  235;  U.  S.  Credit 
System  Co.  v.  American  Credit  Indemnity  Co., 
53  Fed.  818;  Dickerson  v.  Greene,  53  Fed. 
247;  International  Terra-Cotta  Lumber  Co. 
v.  Maurer,  44  Fed.  618;  American  Bell  Tel. 
Co.  v.  Southern  Tel.  Co.,  34  Fed.  803 ;  Bogart 
V.  Hinds,  25  Fed.  484 ;  McMillin  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  Valley  Transp.  Co.,  18  Fed.  260,  5  Mc- 
Crary  561;  Pitts  v.  Whitman,  19  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,196,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  189,  2  Story 
609.  It  is  unnecessary  to  specify  particular 
claims  of  the  patent  'except  under  unusual 
circumstances.  Morton  Trust  Co.  V.  Ameri- 
can Car,  etc.,  Co.,  129  Fed.  916,  64  C.  C.  A. 
367;  Johnson  v.  Columbia  Phonograph  Co., 
106  Fed.  319.  But  see  Eastwood  v.  Cutler- 
Hammer  Mfg.  Co.,  148  Fed.  718.  Reference 
to  patent  for  full  disclosure  is  sufficient. 
Graham  v.  Earl,  92  Fed.  155,  34  C.  C.  A.  267. 

Profert  of  patent  does  not  make  it  proof  of 
the  allegations  contained  therein  as  to  the 
prior  art.  Indurated  Fibre  Industries  Co.  v. 
Grace,  52  Fed.  124. 

49.  Must  show  ownership  at  time  of  suit 
and  not  merely  ownership  at  some  time. 
Bowers  v.  Bucyrus  Co.,  132  Fed.  39;  Ameri- 
can Graphophone  Co.  v.  National  Phonograph 
Co.,  127  Fed.  349;  Lettelier  v.  Mann,  79  Fed. 
81;  De  Beaumont  v.  Williames,  71  Fed.  812; 
Krick  v.  Jansen,  52  Fed.  823.  Allegation  of 
ownership  need  not  be  in  set  words.  Arrott 
I/.  Standard  Mfg.  Co.,  113  Fed.  1014;  Ather- 
ton  Mach.  Co.  v.  Atwood-Morrison  Co.,  102 
Fed.  949,  43  C.  C.  A.  72. 

The  various  assignments  by  which  title  was 
acquired  need  not  be  alleged.  Edison  Electric 

[XIII,  C,  13,  b,  (I)] 


1032     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


and  should  set  fortli  those  facts  which  are  statutory  prerequisites  to  the  grant  of 
a  valid  patent.50  A  positive  averment  of  such  prerequisites  is  necessary.  Allega- 
tions on  belief  are  insufficient.51  The  bill  should  allege  infringement  by  defendant,52 


Light  Co.  v.  Packard  Electric  Co.,  61  Fed. 
1002;  Clement  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Upson,  etc.,  Co., 
40  Fed.  471;  Brooks  v.  Jenkins,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,953,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  41,  3  McLean  432; 
Meerse  -v.  Allen,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,393a; 
Nourse  v.  Allen,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,367,  4 
Blatchf.  376,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  63. 

Recording  of  assignment  need  not  be  al- 
leged. Perry  v.  Corning,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,004,  7  Blatchf.  195. 

Where  judgment  of  court  is  relied  on  to 
show  title  such  proceedings  should  be  al- 
leged. Parker  v.  Brant,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,727,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  58. 

Presumption  as  to  ownership. —  Original 
patentee  presumed  to  be  the  owner  until  the 
contrary  appears.  Fischer  v.  Neil,  6  Fed. 
89. 

Insufficient  allegation  of  ownership  see 
Jaros  Hygienic  Underwear  Co.  v.  Fleece  Hy- 
gienic Underwear  Co.,  60  Fed.  622. 

Sufficient  allegation  of  ownership  shown 
see  ^Eolian  Co.  v.  Hallett,  etc.,  Piano  Co., 
134  Fed.  872;  General  Electric  Co.  v.  Wag- 
ner Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  123  Fed.  101  [affirmed 
in  130  Fed.  772,  66  C.  C.  A.  82];  Arnold 
Monophase  Electric  Co.  v.  Wagner  Electric 
Mfg.  Co.,  118  Fed.  653;  Goss  Printing-Press 
Co.  v.  Scott,  108  Fed.  253,  47  C.  C.  A.  302, 
110  Fed.  402,  49  C.  C.  A.  97. 

Sufficient  allegations  as  to  territorial  as- 
signment see  Washburn,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  t?. 
Haish,  4  Fed.  900,  10  Biss.  65. 

50.  Eastwood  ?;.  Cutler-Hammer  Mfg.  Co., 
148  Fed.  718;  American  Graphophone  Co.  v. 
National  Phonograph  Co.,  127  Fed.  349;  Rub- 
ber Tire  Wheel  Co.  v.  Davie,  100  Fed.  85; 
Miller  v.  Smith,  5  Fed.  359,  design  patents. 

An  allegation  that  the  invention  was  not 
in  public  use  or  on  sale  for  two  years  before 
application  is  necessary.  Hayes-Young  Tie 
Plate  Co.  v.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.,  130  Fed. 
900  [affirmed  in  137  Fed.  80,  70  C.  C.  A.  1]  ; 
Krick  v.  Janscn,  52  Fed.  823;  Coop  v.  Dr. 
Savage  Physical  Development  Inst.,  47  Fed. 
899;  Consolidated  Brake-Shoe  Co.  v.  Detroit 
Steel,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed.  894;  Nathan  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Craig,  47  Fed.  522;  Blessing  t?.  John 
Trageser  Steam  Copper  Works,  34  Fed.  753. 
Contra,  Noe  v.  Prentice,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,284a.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  allege  that 
it  was  not  in  public  use  or  on  sale  with  the 
inventor's  consent.  Coop  v.  Dr.  Savage  Physi- 
cal Development  Inst.,  supra',  Blessing  v. 
John  Trageser  Steam  Copper  Works,  supra. 

An  allegation  that  the  invention  was  not 
patented  or  described  in  a  printed  publica- 
tion is  necessary.  Rubber  Tire  Wheel  Co.  v. 
Davie,  100  Fed.  85;  Diamond  Match  Co.  v. 
Ohio  Match  Co.,  80  Fed.  117;  Goebel  v.  Amer- 
ican R.  Supply  Co.,  55  Fed.  825;  Overman 
Wheel  Co.  v.  Elliott  Hickory  Cycle  Co.,  49 
Fed.  859.  An  allegation  as  to  foreign  patent 
must  be  made  under  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  §  4887, 
as  amended  March  3,  1897,  29  U.  S.  St.  at  L. 
692  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3382];  Elli- 

[XIII,  C,  13,  b,  (l)] 


ott,  etc.,  Book-Typewriter  Co.  v.  Fisher  Type- 
writer Co.,  109  Fed.  330. 

An  allegation  that  the  invention  was  not 
abandoned  is  unnecessary  since  that  is  matter 
of  defense.  Warren  Featherbone  Co.  v.  War- 
ner Bros.  Co.,  92  Fed.  990. 

Proceedings  in  patent  office. —  The  filing  of 
application  for  patent  in  due  form  is  pre- 
sumed from  grant  of  patent  and  need  not 
be  alleged,  any  defect  therein  being  matter 
of  defense  (Bowers  v.  Bucyrus  Co.,  132  Fed. 
39)  ;  nor  is  it  necessary  in  a  suit  for  infringe- 
ment of  a  reissued  patent  to  allege  specifi- 
cally the  ground  on  which  reissue  was  ob- 
tained ( Spaeth  v.  Barney,  22  Fed.  828 ) . 

The  fact  that  some  patents  in  suit  have 
expired  does  not  render  the  bill  bad.  Where 
the  inventions  covered  by  several  patents  en- 
ter into  and  constitute  one  compact  machine, 
it  is  necessary  in  suing  for  infringement  to 
complain  upon  all  the  patents.  Russell  v. 
Kern,  58  Fed.  382  [affirmed  in  64  Fed. 
581]. 

Separate  affidavit  as  to  inventorship  is 
unnecessary.  Consolidated  Brake-Shoe  Co.  v. 
Detroit  Steel,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed.  894. 

An  allegation  of  prior  adjudication  sustain- 
ing patent  is  impertinent  unless  injunction 
is  p raved.  Haarmann  v.  Lueders,  109  Fed. 
327;  Wirt  v.  Hicks,  46  Fed.  71.  But  prior 
litigation  may  be  recited  where  injunction  is 
sought.  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  y.  Southern 
Tel.  Co.,  34  Fed.  803;  Steam-Gauge,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  McRoberts,  26  Fed.  765. 

Immaterial  matters  alleged  in  the  bill  will 
be  stricken  out  on  motion.  Western  Electric 
Co.  v.  Williams-Abbott  Electric  Co.,  83  Fed. 
842. 

Bills  held  sufficient.— Rubber  Tire  Wheel 
Co.  v.  Davie,  100  Fed.  85;  American  Cable 
R.  Co.  v.  New  York,  42  Fed.  60;  Thompson 
v.  Jewett,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,961. 

English  practice. —  Complainant  must  make 
oath  that  he  believes  himself  to  be  the  first 
inventor.  Hill  v.  Thompson,  Holt  N.  P.  636, 
3  E.  C.  L.  249,  3  Meriv.  622,  17  Rev.  Rep. 
156,  36  Engf.  Reprint  239,  2  Moore  C.  P.  424, 
8  Taunt.  375,  20  Rev.  Rep.  488,  4  E.  C.  L. 
190.  Enrolment  within  prescribed  time  must 
be  alleged.  Bentley  v.  Goldthorp,  1  C.  B. 
368,  2  D.  &  L.  795,  9  Jur.  470,  14  L.  J. 
Ch.  115,  50  E.  C.  L.  368.  Express  averment 
of  novelty  is  not  necessary.  Amory  v.  Brown, 
L.  R.  8  Eq.  663,  38  L.  J.  Ch.  593,  20  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  654,  17  Wkly.  Rep.  849. 

51.  Rubber  Tire  Wheel  Co.  v.  Davie,   100 
Fed.  85. 

52.  General    allegation    is    sufficient.— In- 
durated Fibre  Industries  Co.  v.  Grace,  52  Fed. 
124;  American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  V.  Southern  Tel. 
Co.,  34   Fed.   803;    Fischer  v.  Hayes,   6   Fed. 
76,  19  Blatchf.  26;  American  Diamond  Rock- 
Boring   Co.   v.    Rutland    Marble    Co.,    2    Fed. 
355,    18   Blatchf.    147;    Haven   v.    Brown,    11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   6,228,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  413; 
Thatcher   Heating   Co.  v.   Carbon  Stove  Co., 


PATENTS 


[30  Cyc.]     1033 


and  should  include  a  prayer  for  an  accounting  together  with  a  prayer  for 
equitable  relief  such  as  discovery  or  an  injunction.53  The  bill  should  be  verified.54 
(n)  PLEA  on  ANSWER  —  (A)  Plea  —  (1)  IN  GENEKAL.  A  plea  in  equity  is 
a  special  answer  urging  some  particular  defense  by  which  the  issue  is  reduced  to 
a  single  point.  Any  defense  which  brings  forward  new  matter  in  opposition  to 
the  equity  of  the  bill  may  be  presented  by  plea.55  A  mere  denial  of  the  allega- 
tions of  the  bill  without  any  averment  of  new  matter  cannot  be  made  by  plea.56 


23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13.864,  4  Ban.  &  A.  68,  7 
Reporter  199,  15  Off.  Gaz.  1051,  2  N.  J.  L.  J. 
25;  Turrell  v.  Cammerrer,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,266,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  462. 

Where  the  bill  does  not  clearly  show 
wrongful  use  of  the  patented  invention  by 
defendant  it  is  bad.  Knox  Rock-Blasting  Co. 
v.  Rairdon  Stone  Co.,  87  Fed.  969;  American 
Solid  Leather  Button  Co.  v.  Empire  State 
Nail  Co.,  50  Fed.  929;  Still  v.  Reading,  9 
Fed.  40,  4  Woods  345 ;  Miller  v.  Smith,  5  Fed. 
359;  Noe  v.  Prentice,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,284a. 

Amount  of  damages  need  not  be  alleged. 
American  Graphophone  Co.  v.  National  Pho- 
nograph Co.,  127  Fed.  349. 

Infringement  within  six  years  need  not  be 
alleged.  Peters  v.  Hanger,  134  Fed.  586,  67 
C.  C.  A.  386  [reversing  127  Fed.  820,  62 
C.  C.  A.  498]. 

Allegation  upon  information  and  belief 
sufficient.  Murray  Co.  v.  Continental  Gin 
Co.,  126  Fed.  533 ;  Wyckoff  v.  Wagner  Type- 
writer Co.,  88  Fed.  5*15. 

Allegations  held  sufficient  see  Adee  v.  Peck, 
42  Fed.  497  [following  Adee  v.  Peck,  39  Fed. 
209]  ;  Schneider  v.  Missouri  Glass  Co.,  36 
Fed.  582;  Kaolatype  Engraving  Co.  v.  Hoke, 
30  Fed.  444;  McMillin  v.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
Transp.  Co.,  18  Fed.  260,  5  McCrary  561. 

English  practice. —  Particulars  should  be 
given.  Ledgard  v.  Bull,  11  App.  Cas.  648; 
Batley  v.  Kynock,  L.  R.  19  Eq.  229,  44  L.  J. 
Ch.  219,  31  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  573,  23  Wkly. 
Rep.  209;  Finnegan  v.  James,  L.  R.  19  Eq. 
72,  44  L.  J.  Ch.  185,  23  Wkly.  Rep.  373; 
Needham  v.  Oxley,  1  Hem.  &  M.  248,  9  Jur. 
N.  S.  598,  8  L.  T."  Rep.  N.  S.  532,  2  New  Rep. 
267,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  745,  71  Eng.  Reprint 
108;  Wenham  Co.  v.  Champion  Gas  Lamp 
Co.,  63  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  827.  But  see  Talbot 
v.  La  Roche,  15  C.  B.  310,  2  C.  L.  R.  836,  80 
E.  C.  L.  310. 

53.  American  Graphophone  Co.  v.  National 
Phonograph  Co.,  127  Fed.  349. 

Interrogations. —  Interrogatories  as  to  busi- 
ness not  permitted  until  validity  of  patent 
and  infringement  shown.  Lovell  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Automatic  Wringer  Co.,  124  Fed.  971;  Keller 
r.  Strauss,  88  Fed.  517.  Permitted  where 
validity  not  in  issue.  Haarmann  v.  Lueders, 
109  Fed.  327. 

Production  of  books. —  Complainant  cannot 
compel  production  of  all  books  of  a  big  con- 
cern, but  must  specify  those  wanted.  Fuller 
r.  Field,  82  Fed.  813/27  C.  C.  A.  165. 

Damages  by  name  need  not  be  prayed. 
Emerson  v.  Simm,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4.443,  6 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  281,  3  Off.  Gaz.  293. 

Prayers  held  sufficient  see  Wyckoff  v.  Wag- 
ner Typewriter  Co.,  88  Fed.  515;  Campbell 
v.  James,  2  Fed.  338,  18  Blatchf.  92. 


English  practice. —  Discovery  may  be  had, 
although  patent  has  not  been  sustained.  Fox- 
well  v.  Webster,  9  Jur.  N.  S.  1189,  9  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  363,  3  New  Rep.  103,  12  Wkly. 
Rep.  94;  Benno  Jaffe,  etc..  Lanolin  Fabrik 
v.  Richardson,  62  L.  J.  Ch.  710,  68  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  404,  3  Reports  515,  41  Wkly.  Rep. 
534;  Swinborne  v.  Nelson,  22  L.  J.  Ch.  331, 
1  Wkly.  Rep.  155;  Renard  v.  Levinstein,  10 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  94,  11  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  79, 
3  New  Rep.  665.  Discovery  before  plea  see 
Jones  v.  Pratt.  6  H.  &  N.  697,  7  Jur.  N.  S. 
978,  30  L.  J.  Exch.  365,  4  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
411,  9  Wkly.  Rep.  696;  Thomas  v.  Tillie,  17 
Ir.  C.  L.  783.  May  have  discovery  of  names 
of  purchasers.  Murray  v.  Clayton,  L.  R.  15 
Eq.  115,  42  L.  J.  Ch.  191,  27  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
664,  21  Wkly.  Rep.  498;  Tetley  v.  Easton, 
18  C.  B.  643,  25  L.  J.  C.  P.  293,  86  E.  C.  L. 
643;  Crossley  v.  Stewart,  7  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
848,  1  New  Rep.  426.  Discovery  not  used  op- 
pressively to  compel  disclosure  of  secret  proc- 
esses. Ashworth  v.  Roberts,  45  Ch.  D.  623, 
60  L.  J.  Ch.  27,  63  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  160,  39 
Wkly.  Rep.  170. 

Canadian  practice. —  Discovery  of  secret 
process  cannot  be  had  until  the  validity  of 
the  patent  is  established.  Dickerson  v.  Rad- 
cliffe,  17  Ont.  Pr.  586. 

54.  Verification  on  "belief"  is  insufficient. 
It   should   be   positive.      Rubber   Tire   Wheel 
Co.  v.  Davie,   100  Fed.  85.     But  see  Elliott, 
etc.,    Book-Typewriter    Co.    v.    Fisher    Type- 
writer Co.,  109  Fed.  330. 

Assignee  may  verify.  Thompson  v.  Jewett, 
23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,961. 

Equitable  owner  may  verify.  Goodyear  v. 
Allyn,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,555,  6  Blatchf.  33,  3 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  374. 

55.  See  cases  cited  infra,  this  note. 
Objection  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 

may  be  taken  by  plea.  Edison  Electric  Light 
Co.  V.  U.  S.  Electric  Lighting  Co.,  35  Fed. 
134. 

Reissue  departing  from  original. —  The  de- 
fense that  a  reissue  sued  on  is  invalid  because 
it  covers  an  invention  not  included  in  the 
original  may  be  presented  by  a  special  plea. 
Hubbell  V.  De  Land,  14  Fed.  471,  11  Biss. 
382. 

The  defense  of  laches  may  be  presented  by 
plea.  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Equitable 
L.  Assur.  Soc.,  55  Fed.  478. 

Date  of  patent. —  A  defense  to  a  suit  for 
infringement  on  the  ground  that  the  patent 
bears  date  more  than  six  months  later  than 
the  notice  given  to  the  applicant  of  the  al- 
lowance of  the  application  may  properly  be 
taken  by  plea.  Western  Electric  Co.  v.  North 
Electric  Co.,  135  Fed.  79,  67  C.  C.  A.  553. 

56.  Hubbell  v.  De  Land,   14  Fed.  471,   11 

[XIII,  C,  13,  b,  (II),  (A),  (1)] 


1034     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


(2)  REQUISITES   AND  SUFFICIENCY.     The   allegations  of  the    plea  should  be 
direct  and  distinct,57  and  must  be  limited  to  a  single  defense  or  issue,  unless,  by 
permission  of  the  court,  defendant  is  allowed  to  plead  double.58     A  plea  may  con- 
tain an  averment  of  several  facts,  but  they  must  all  conduce  to  a  single  point  of 
defense.59     If  the  plea  contains  more  than  one  defense,  the  practice  is  not  to  con- 
fine defendant  to  his  first  ground  of  defense  by  striking  out  the  others,  but  to 
allow  him  either  to  set  down  the  pleas  as  an  answer,  or  to  put  him  to  his  election 
as  to  which  of  the  pleas  he  will  abide  by.60 

(3)  EFFECT  OF  SETTING  DOWN  FOE  ARGUMENT.     By  setting  down  pleas  for 
argument,   a   complainant   admits   the  facts,   but  not  the  conclusions,  pleaded 
therein.61 

(B)  Answer  —  (1)  MATTERS  REQUIRED  TO  BE  RAISED  BY  ANSWER.  Defenses 
which  go  to  the  merits  and  relate  in  no  wise  to  matters  in  abatement  or  in  bar 
must  be  raised  by  answer.62  But  where  the  infringement  complained  of  has  not 
been  committed  by  defendant  but  by  another  person,  this  issue  may  be  tendered 
by  plea.63  So  also  the  defenses  mentioned  in  the  statute w  must  be  set  up  by 
answer  and  not  by  plea.65 

(2)  REQUISITES  AND  SUFFICIENCY.  The  allegations  of  the  answer  must  be 
sufficiently  definite  and  precise  to  inform  plaintiff  what  defense  he  has  to  meet.66 
It  must  include  all  matters  of  defense  on  which  defendant  intends  to  rely,  except 


Biss.  382;  Sharp  v.  Reissner,  9  Fed.  445,  20 
Blatchf.  10. 

57.  Westinghouse,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stanley,  65 
Fed.  321. 

58.  Schnauffer  v.  Aste,  148  Fed.  867 ;  West- 
ern  Electric   Co.  v.  North  Electric   Co.,    135 
Fed.  79,  67  C.  C.  A.  553;  Giant  Powder  Co. 
v.  Safety  Nitro  Powder  Co.,  19  Fed.  509. 

59.  Reissner  v.  Anness,   20  Fed.   Cas.  No. 
11,686,  3  Ban.  &  A.  148,  12  Off.  Gaz.  842. 

60.  Reissner  v.  Anness,   20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,686,  3  Ban.  &  A.  148,  12  Off.  Gaz.  842. 

61.  General  Electric   Co.  v.  New  England 
Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  128  Fed.  738,  63  C.  C.  A. 
448;   Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Equitable 
L.  Assur.  Co.,  55  Fed.  478. 

By  taking  issue  upon  a  plea  the  complain- 
ant admits  its  sufficiency.  Birdseye  v.  Heil- 
ner,  26  Fed.  147. 

62.  See  cases  cited  infra,  this  note. 

The  defenses  of  lack  of  invention  and  non- 
infringement  cannot  be  made  by  plea,  but 
only  by  answer.  Glucose  Sugar  Refining  Co. 
v.  Douglass,  etc.,  Co.,  145  Fed.  949;  Western 
Electric  Co.  v.  North  Electric  Co.,  135  Fed. 
79,  67  C.  C.  A.  553;  Union  Switch,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  833; 
Leatherbee  v.  Brown,  69  Fed.  590;  Korn  v. 
Wiebusch,  33  Fed.  50;  Sharp  v.  Reissner,  9 
Fed.  445,  20  Blatchf.  10. 

Issues  raised  by  answer. —  Where  a  bill  for 
infringement  of  a  patent  against  a  non-resi- 
dent defendant  alleged  infringement  in  the 
district  where  the  suit  was  brought,  which 
allegation  was  denied  in  the  answer,  the  is- 
sue as  to  infringement  is  limited  to  infringe- 
ment within  such  district.  Gray  v.  Grin- 
berg,  159  Fed.  138  [affirming  147  Fed.  732]. 

63.  Leatherbee  v.  Brown,  69  Fed.  590. 

64.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4920. 

65.  Carnrick  v.  McKesson,  8  Fed.  807,   19 
Blatchf.  369. 

The  defenses  of  a  prior  patent  or  previous 
description  in  a  printed  publication  must  be 

[XIII,  C,  13,  b,  (n),  (A),  (2)] 


set  up  in  an  answer,  and  not  in  a  plea.  Carn- 
rick v.  McKesson,  8  Fed.  807,  19  Blatchf. 
369. 

A  defense  of  prior  invention  and  use  cannot 
be  raised  by  plea,  but  only  by  answer.  Ar- 
rott  v.  Standard  Sanitary  Mfg.  Co.,  113  Fed. 
389. 

66.  See  cases  cited  infra,  this  note. 

If  fraud  or  subterfuge  is  relied  on,  the  alle- 
gations must  point  out  specifically  the  de- 
tails thereof.  American  Sulphite  Pulp  Co.  v. 
Howland  Falls  Pulp  Co.,  70  Fed.  986  [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  80  Fed.  395,  25 
C.  C.  A.  500]  ;  Clark  v.  Scott,  5  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,833,  9  Blatchf.  301,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
245,  2  Off.  Gaz.  4;  Doughty  v.  West,  7  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,029,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  553;  Gear 
v.  Grosvenor,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,291,  6  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  314,  Holmes  215,  3  Off.  Gaz.  380, 
holding  that  an  allegation  that  an  extension 
of  a  patent  was  procured  by  fraud,  misrep- 
resentation, and  in  violation  of  law  is  simply 
an  allegation  of  a  conclusion  of  law  from 
facts  —  which  facts  are  not  pleaded. 

The  denial  of  infringement,  it  has  been 
held,  must  be  specific  and  unevasive.  Chase 
v.  Fillebrown,  58  Fed.  374;  Miller  v.  Bu- 
chanan, 5  Fed.  366;  Jordan  v.  Wallace,  13 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,523,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  185, 
8  Phila.  (Pa.)  165. 

The  issue  of  abandonment  must  be  ten- 
dered by  clear  and  specific  averments.  West- 
ern Electric  Co.  v.  Sperry  Electric  Co.,  58 
Fed.  186,  7  C.  C.  A.  164. 

The  defense  of  prior  patent  is  insufficient 
without  a  distinct  averment  that  the  inven- 
tion had  been  before  patented.  Saunders  V. 
Allen,  53  Fed.  109. 

A  denial  of  the  novelty  of  the  invention 
described  in  the  patent  named  in  the  bill, 
specifying  it  by  number,  is  sufficient  to  raise 
the  issue  of  invention,  although  the  title  of 
the  patent  as  stated  in  the  answer  may  be 
technically  inaccurate.  Robinson  v.  Ameri- 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1035 


such  as  are  proper  subjects  of  a  plea  or  a  demurrer.67  Defenses  not  set  up  in  the 
answer  will  not  be  considered  by  the  court  in  rendering  its  decision.68  More  than 
one  defense  may  be  presented  in  an  answer  in  equity,69  provided  they  are  not 
inconsistent ; 70  but  each  should  be  separately  and  clearly  alleged  without  condition 
or  qualification.71  They  ought  not  to  be  blended  in  the  same  allegations  where 
they  depend  upon  different  principles.72 

(3)  AMENDMENT.     The  general  rules  governing  the  allowance  of  amendments 
to  answers  in  equity  cases  are  applicable  in  suits  for  the  infringement  of  patents.73 
An  amendment  will  not  be  allowed  where  it  appears  that  the  matter  of  the  pro- 
posed amendment  could,  with  reasonable  diligence,  have  been  sooner  introduced 
into  the  answer 74  where  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  answer  as  filed  ; 75  or 
where,  upon  the  state  of  facts  shown  by  the  movant's  affidavits,  plaintiff's  patent 
would  not  be  defeated.76     Nor  will  a  motion  to  amend  be  regarded  favorably 
where  the  new  defense  is  dependent  wholly  on  parol  evidence.77     Authority  to 
grant  the  amendment  being  established,  the  court  may  properly  allow  it  to  be 
entered  nunc pro  tune™ 

(4)  ADMISSIONS  IN  ANSWER.     An  allegation  of  infringement  in  the  bill  should 
be  answered  distinctly  and  unevasively,  and  if  defendant  does  not  deny  or  dis- 
prove it  the  fact  of  infringement  is  admitted.79     The  fact  thus  admitted  must  be 


can  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Fed.  693,  68  C.  C.  A. 
331. 

67.  See  Robinson  Pat.  §  1115. 

68.  Session  v.  Romadka,   145  U.  S.  29,  12 
S.  Ct.  799,  36  L.  ed.  609 ;  Puetz  v.  Bransford, 
31  Fed.  458;  Burden  v.  Corning,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,143,  2   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  477;   Howes  v. 
Nute,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,790,  4  Cliff.  173,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.   263;    Jennings  v.  Pierce,   13 
Fed.   Cas.    No.    7,283,   3   Ban.    &   A.    361,    15 
Blatchf.  42;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  13  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,519,  2  Abb.  398,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  232, 
7    Phila.    (Pa.)    533;    Pitts   -v.   Edmonds,    19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,191,  1  Biss.  168,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  52;  Williams  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   17,716,  4  Ban.  &  A.  441,   17 
Blatchf.    21,    16    Off.    Gaz.    906;    Wonson    v. 
Peterson,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,934,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
249,    13   Off.   Gaz.   548;    Wyeth  v.   Stone,   30 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,107,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  23,  1 
Story   273.      Compare    Coupe    v.    Royer,    155 
U.  S.  565,  15  S.  Ct.  199,  39  L.  ed.  263 ;  Dun- 
lap  v.  Schofield,  152  U.  S.  244,  14  S.  Ct.  576, 
38  L.  ed.  426;  Lowell  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hogg,  70 
Fed.  787. 

The  defense  of  prior  use  should  be  pleaded, 
or  notice  given  before  trial,  with  particulars 
of  time,  place,  and  persons.  Klein  v.  Seattle, 
63  Fed.  702  [affirmed  in  77  Fed.  200,  23 
C.  C.  A.  114]. 

Want  of  novelty  as  a  defense  to  a  suit  for 
infringement  must  be  specially  alleged.  Gui- 
det  v.  Barber,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,857,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  149;  Jordan  v.  Dobson,  13  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,519,  2  Abb.  398,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  232, 
7  Phila.  (Pa.)  533. 

The  defense  of  non-patentability  can  be 
availed  of  without  setting  it  up  in  the  an- 
swer. Hendy  v.  Golden  State,  etc.,  Iron 
Works,  127  U.  S.  370,  8  S.  Ct.  1275,  32 
L.  ed.  207;  Guidet  v.  Barber,  11  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,857,  5  Off.  Gaz.  149. 

69.  Graham   v.   Mason,    10   Fed.    Cas.   No. 
5.671,  4  Cliff.  88,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1;  Jones 
v.   Sewall,    13   Fed.    Cas.   No.    7,495,    3    Cliff. 


563,    6    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    343,    3    Off.    Gaz. 
630. 

70.  National   Mfg.    Co.   v.  Meyers,   7   Fed. 
355. 

Defenses  are  inconsistent  when  they  cannot 
both  be  true,  but  where  there  are  different 
defenses  and  they  may  all  be  true,  although 
entirely  different  in  their  nature,  they  are  not 
inconsistent.  National  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Meyers,  7 
Fed.  355. 

71.  Graham    v.   Mason,    10   Fed.    Cas.   No. 
5,671,  4  Cliff.  88,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1. 

72.  Jones  v.  Sewall,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,495, 
3  Cliff.  563,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343,  3  Off.  Gaz. 
630. 

73.  See  EQUITY,  16  Cyc.  1. 

Absence  of  laches. —  The  amendment  of  an 
answer  may  be  permitted  where  there  has 
been  no  laches  or  delay,  where  the  applica- 
tion was  made  as  soon  as  the  new  facts  were 
discovered,  and  there  is  nothing  contradictory 
or  inconsistent  between  the  answer  as  filed 
and  the  amendment  proposed  to  be  made. 
Morehead  v.  Jones,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,791, 
3  Wall.  Jr.  306. 

74.  India  Rubber  Comb  Co.  v.  Phelps,   13 
Fed.   Cas.   No.   7,025,  8   Blatchf.  85,   4   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  315;  Ruggles  v.  Eddy,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,118,  1  Ban.  &  A.  92,  11  Blatchf.  524. 

75.  Pentlarge  v.  Beeston,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,964,  4  Ban.  &  A.  23,  15  Blatchf.  347. 

76.  Richardson  v.  Croft,  11  Fed.  800. 

77.  India  Rubber  Comb  Co.  v.  Phelps,   13 
Fed.   Cas.  No.   7,025,   8  Blatchf.   85,  4   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  315. 

78.  Roemer   v.    Simon,    95    U.    S.    214,    24 
L.  ed.  384. 

79.  Chase  v.  Fillebrown,  58  Fed.  374;  Lane 
v.  Soveri^n,  43  Fed.  890;   Globe  Nail  Co.  v. 
Superior  "Nail  Co.,  27  Fed.  454;  Ely  v.  Mon- 
son,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,431,  4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  64;  Goodyear  v.  Day,  10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,566;   Jordan  v.  Wallace,   13   Fed. 
Cas.    No.    7,523,    5    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    185,    8 
Phila.   165. 

[XIII,  C,  13,  b,  (II),  (B),  (4)] 


1036     [30  Cyc.] 


PATENTS 


accepted  as  established,80  but  the  admission  need  go  no  further  than  its  terms 
necessarily  imply.81 

(5)  NOTICE  OF  SPECIAL  MATTER  —  (a)  NECESSITY.  Under  the  statute  K  persons 
sued  as  infringers  in  a  suit  in  equity,  if  they  give  the  required  notice  in  their 
answer,  may  prove  at  the  final  hearing  the  same  special  matters  in  defense  to  the 
charge  of  infringement  as  those  which  defendant,  in  an  action  at  law,  may  set  up 
under  like  conditions.83  ^Notices  of  the  kind,  when  the  suit  is  in  equity,  may  be 
given  in  the  answer  or  amended  answer,84  and  must  be  filed  fully  thirty  days 
before  trial.85  Under  such  a  pleading  and  notice,  the  respondent  in  an  equity 
suit  may  prove  that  the  patentee  was  not  the  original  and  first  inventor  of  the 
alleged  improvement,  or  that  it  had  been  patented  or  described  in  some  printed 
publication,  or  that  the  invention  had  been  in  public  use  or  on  sale  in  this  country 
for  more  than  two  years  prior  to  the  application ;  and  the  provision  is  that  the 
judgment  or  decree  must  be  in  favor  of  the  defending  party  if  he  proves  any  one 
or  more  of  these  special  matters.86  Where  the  defenses  of  prior  invention, 
knowledge,  or  use  is  set  up,  the  answer  must  allege  the  names  and  places  of  resi- 
dence of  those  whom  they  intend  to  prove  have  possessed  prior  knowledge  of  the 
thing,  and  where  the  same  has  been  used.87  Testimony  of  witnesses  examined 
in  a  case  as  to  alleged  prior  use,  etc.,  by  parties  of  whom  no  notice  was  given  in 
the  answer,  is  incompetent;88  such  testimony  is  admissible  only  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  the  state  of  the  art  at  the  time  of  the  patentee's  invention.89  But 
notice  of  the  names  and  places  of  residence  of  the  witnesses  by  whom  it  is 
intended  to  prove  such  prior  knowledge  and  use  is  not  required.90  The  defenses 
authorized  by  statute 91  are  separate  and  independent  defenses ;  and  each  requires 


80.  Jones   v.   Morehead,    1   Wall.    (U.   S.) 
155,  17  L.  ed.  662;  Lane  v.  Soverign,  43  Fed. 
890;    Jordan   v.    Wallace,    13    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
7,523,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  185,  8  Phila.    (Pa.) 
165. 

81.  Jones  v.   Morehead,    1    Wall.    (U.   S.) 
155,  17  L.  ed.  662. 

82.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4920. 

83.  Bates  v.  Coe,  98  U.  S.  31,  25  L.  ed.  68. 
The  option  which  is  given  by  statute  to 

file  the  general  issue  and  give  notice  does 
not  take  away  the  right  to  set  up  the  special 
matter  in  a  plea.  Phillips  v.  Combstock,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,099,  4  McLean  525,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  724. 

84.  Bates  v.  Coe,  98  U.  S.  31,  25  L.  ed.  68. 

85.  Brunswick  v.  Holzalb,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2,057. 

Plaintiff  is  entitled  to  the  thirty  days 
whether  the  matter  be  set  up  by  plea  or  no- 
tice. Phillips  v.  Combstock,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,099,  4  McLean  525,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
724. 

86.  Bates  v.  Coe,  98  U.  S.  31,  25  L.  ed.  68. 

87.  Anderson   v.   Miller,    129   U.    S.    70,    9 
S.  Ct.  224,  32  L.  ed.  635;   Bates  v.  Coe,  98 
U.  S.  31,  25  L.  ed.  68;   Seymour  v.  Osborne, 
11  Wall.   (U.  S.)  516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Agawam 
Woolen  Co.  v.  Jordan,  7  Wall.    (U.  S.)    583, 
19  L.  ed.   177;    Tatum  v.  Eby,   60   Fed.  403 
(holding    that    an    allegation    that    a    prior 
machine  was  built  by  a  person  named  is  not 
an  allegation  of  prior  use  by  that  person)  ; 
Brown    v.    Hall,    4    Fed.    Cas.    No.    2,008,    6 
Blatchf.  401,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  531;  Earl  v. 
Dexter,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,242,   1   Ban.  &  A. 
400,  Holmes  412,  6  Off.  Gaz.  729;  Graham  v. 
Mason,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,671,  4  Cliff.  88,  5 
Fish.   Pat.   Cas.    1;    Orr   v.   Merrill,   18   Fed. 

[XIIL  C.  13.  b,  (n),  (B),  (4)] 


Cas.  No.  10,591,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  331,  1 
Woodb.  &  M.  376. 

Place  of  use  essential. —  A  notice  of  a  de- 
fense of  prior  use  which  recites  the  names 
and  residences  of  the  alleged  users,  but  wholly 
omits  to  describe  the  place  of  such  use,  is 
fatally  defective.  Diamond  Match  Co.  V. 
Schenck,  71  Fed.  521  [affirmed  in  77  Fed.  208, 
23  C.  C.  A.  122]. 

Prior  patents  relied  on  by  a  defendant  in  a 
suit  for  infringement  as  anticipations  of  the 
one  in  suit  must  be  pleaded  (Jones  v.  Cy- 
phers, 115  Fed.  324  [affirmed  in  126  Fed.  753, 
62  C.  C.  A.  21];  Odiorne  v.  Denney,  18  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,431,  3  Ban.  &  A.  287,  13  Off.  Gaz. 
965,  1  N.  J.  L.  J.  183)  ;  otherwise  they  can- 
not be  considered  for  that  purpose,  but  only 
to  show  the  state  of  the  art,  and  to  limit  the 
claims  involved  (Jones  v.  Cyphers,  supra). 

88.  Stevenson   v.   Magowan,    31    Fed.   824; 
Bragg  v.  Stockton,  27  Fed.  509;  Collender  v. 
Griffith,   6   Fed.    Cas.   No.   3,000,   11    Blatchf. 
213,  3  Off.  Gaz.  689;  Decker  v.  Grote,  7  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,726,  10  Blatchf.  331,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  143,  3  Off.  Gaz.  65;  La  Baw  v,  Hawkins, 
14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,960,   1  Ban.  &  A.  428,  6 
Off.  Gaz.  724. 

89.  Kennedy  v.  Solar  Refining  Co.,  69  Fed. 
715;    Stevenson   v.   Magowan,    31    Fed.    824; 
Geier  v.  Goetinger,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,299,  1 
Ban.  &  A.  553,  7  Off.  Gaz.  563;   La  Baw  v. 
Hawkins,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,960,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
428,  6  Off.  Gaz.  724. 

90.  Woodbury  Patent  Planing  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Keith,  101  U.  S.  479,  25  L.  ed.  939;  Allis  v. 
Buckstaff,  13  Fed.  879;  Wilton  v.  Railroads, 
30   Fed.    Cas.  No.    17,857,  2   Robb  Pat.   Cas. 
641,  1  Wall.  Jr.  192. 

91.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4920. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1037 


its  appropriate   notice   or   answer   in.  order  to  let  in  evidence  to  establish  the 
defense.92 

(b)  SUFFICIENCY.     In  giving  such  notice,  the  respondent  is  not  bound  to  be  so 
specific  as  to  relieve  the  other  from  all  inquiry  or  effort  to  investigate  the  facts. 
If  he  fairly  supplies  his  adversary  with  the  means  of  verifying  his  proof  it  is  all 
that  can  be  required  ;93  and  he  is  not  bound  by  his  notice  to  impose  an  unneces- 
sary and  embarrassing  restriction  on  his  own  right  of  producing  proof  of  what  he 
asserts.94 

(c)  VERIFICATION.     The  notice  required  to  be  given  by  the  statute95  need  not 
be  under  oath.96 

(d)  WAIVER.     The  absence  of  notice  of  want  of  novelty  is  waived  where  the 
testimony  of  witnesses  to  prove  such  defense  is  received  without  objection.97 

(in)  CROSS  BILL.  The  general  rules  in  regard  to  the  tiling  of  a  cross  bill 
apply  to  cross  bills  filed  in  patent  suits.98  Thus  it  must  be  germane  to  the  original 
bill,99  and  must  not  include  mere  matters  of  defense.1 

(iv)  SUPPLEMENTAL  BILL.  The  general  rules  relating  to  supplemental  bills, 
apply  in  suits  for  infringement  of  patents.2 

(v)  DEMURRER  AND  EXCEPTIONS.  The  filing  of  a  demurrer  or  exceptions  is 
controlled  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  equity  pleading.3  If  the  patent  is  void  on  its 


92.  Meyers  v.  Busby,  32  Fed.  670,  13  Sawy. 
33 

93.  Wise  v.  Allis,  9  Wall.   (U.  S.)   737,  19 
L.  ed.  784   (holding  that  it  is  sufficient,  in  a 
suit  for   infringing  a   patent  for   such  large 
objects  as  millstones,  to  state  the  names  and 
addresses  of  the  witnesses  without  stating  the 
particular    mill    in    which    the    stones    were 
used)  ;    Smith   v.    Frazer,    22    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
13,048,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  543,  2  Off.  Gaz.  175, 
3  Pittsb.    (Pa.)   397. 

94.  Wise  v.  Allis,  9  Wall.   (U.  S.)   737,  19 
L.  ed.  784. 

95.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.   (1878)    §  4920. 

96.  Campbell  v.  New  York,  45  Fed.  243. 

97.  Crouch  v.  Speer,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,438, 
1  Ban.  &  A.  145,  6  Off.  Gaz.  187 ;  Roemer  V. 
Simon,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,997,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
138,  5  Off.  Gaz.  555  [affirmed  in  95  U.  S.  214, 
24  L.  ed.  384]. 

98.  See  cases  cited  infra,  this  section. 

99.  Welsbach    Light    Co.    v.    Cosmopolitan 
Incandescent  Gaslight  Co.,  78  Fed.  639;  New 
Departure    Bell    Co.    v.    Hardware    Specialty 
Co.,  62  Fed.  462;  International  Tooth-Crown 
Co.  v.  Carmichael,  44  Fed.  350;  Johnson  R. 
Signal  Co.  v.  Union  Switch,  etc.,  Co.,  43  Fed. 
331;  Curran  v.  St.  Charles  Car  Co.,  32  Fed. 
835. 

1.  Welsbach  Light  Co.  v.  Cosmopolitan  In- 
candescent Gaslight  Co.,  78  Fed.  639;  Atkins 
v.  Parke,  61  Fed.  953,  10  C.  C.  A.  189;  Puetz 
v.  Bransford,  32  Fed.  318. 

2.  Newly  discovered  evidence. —  Supplemen- 
tal  bills   in   the  nature  of  a  bill   of  review 
permitted    upon    newly    discovered    evidence. 
Diamond  Drill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelley,   138  Fed. 
833;  Kelley  v.  Diamond  Drill,  etc.,  Co.,   136 
Fed.  855,  69  C.  C.  A.  599;  Municipal  Signal 
Co.  v.  Gamewell  Fire-Alarm  Tel.  Co.,  77  Fed. 
452.    Contra,  where  the  evidence  might  have 
been     discovered     originally.      Westinghouse 
Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stanley  Instrument  Co., 
138    Fed.  823,   71   C.   C.   A.    189;    Bennett  v. 
Schooley,  77  Fed.  352. 


New  infringement. —  Supplemental  bill  is 
permitted  as  to  new  infringement  since  origi- 
nal bill.  Westinghouse  Air  Brake  Co.  v. 
Christensen  Engineering  Co.,  126  Fed.  764. 
Contra,  Chicago  Grain  Door  Co.  v.  Chicago, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  137  Fed.  101. 

Supplemental  bill  setting  up  adjudication 
in  other  circuits  is  permitted.  Electrical 
Accumulator  Co.  v.  Brush  Electric  Co.,  44 
Fed.  602. 

Supplemental  bill  bringing  in  other  defend- 
ants overruled.  Tubman  v.  Wason  Mfg.  Co., 
44  Fed.  429. 

Suit  on  original  patent  cannot  be  continued 
as  to  reissue  by  supplemental  bill  see  Fry 
v.  Quinlan,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,140,  13  Blatchf. 
205.  Contra,  Woodworth  v.  Stone,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  18,021,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  296,  3 
Story  749. 

3.  Thus  the  point  that  the  allegations  of 
the  bill  are  insufficient  may  be  taken  by  de- 
murrer. Hutton  v.  Star  Slide  Seat  Co.,  60 
Fed.  747;  Hanlon  v.  Primrose,  56  Fed.  600; 
Coop  v.  Dr.  Savage  Physical  Development 
Inst.,  47  Fed.  899;  International  Terra-Cotta 
Lumber  Co.  v.  Maurer,  44  Fed.  618;  Mershon 
v.  J.  F.  Pease  Furnace  Co.,  24  Fed.  741, 
23  Blatchf.  329 ;  Fischer  v.  O'Shaughnessey,  6 
Fed.  92. 

Demurrer  for  insufficiency  overruled  see 
Bragg  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hartford,  56  Fed.  292; 
Allis  v.  Stowell,  15  Fed.  242;  Perry  v.  Corn- 
ing, 19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,004,  7  Blatchf.  195; 
Woodworth  v.  Edwards,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,014,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  610,  3  Woodb.  &  M. 
120. 

Reference  in  bill  to  patents  not  produced 
does  not  place  them  before  the  court  for  con- 
sideration on  demurrer.  Bowers  v.  Bucynn 
Co.,  132  Fed.  39;  Warner  Bros.  Co.  r.  War- 
ren- Featlierbone  Co.,  97  Fed.  604. 

Patentability  not  admitted  by  demurrer 
see  Kaolatype  Engraving  Co.  v.  Hoke,  30 
Fed.  444. 

Exceptions    for    discovery    see    Graham    V. 

[XIII,  C,  13,  b,  (v)] 


1038     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


face  the  point  may  be  made  by  and  determined  on  demurrer.4  In  determining 
the  question  of  validity  the  court  will  take  judicial  notice  of  matters  of  common 
knowledge.5 

(vi)  AMENDMENTS,  VARIANCE,  AND  MULTIFARIOUSNESS.  The  ordinary  rules 
which  govern  equity  pleading  are  held  applicable  in  respect  of  the  amendment 
of  pleadings  in  suits  brought  for  the  infringement  of  patents.6  They  are  like- 


Mason,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,671,  4  Cliff.  88. 
5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  1. 

Exceptions  for  surplusage  see  Stirrat  v. 
Excelsior  Mfg.  Co.,  44  Fed.  142. 

4.  Richards  v.  Chase  Elevator  Co.,  158  U.  S. 
299,  15  S.  Ct.  831,  39  L.  ed.  991  [affirming 
40  Fed.  165] ;  Jackes-Evans  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Hemp,  140  Fed.  254,  71  C.  C.  A.  646;  Ameri- 
can Salesbook  Co.  v.  Carter-Crume  Co.,  125 
Fed.  499  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  129 
Fed.  1004,  62  C.  C.  A.  679]  ;  Strom  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Weir  Frog  Co.,  83  Fed.  170,  27  C.  C.  A. 
502  [affirming  75  Fed.  279] ;  Covert  v. 
Travers  Bros.  Co.,  70  Fed.  788;  Heaton- 
Periinsular  Button-Fastener  Co.  v.  Schlocht- 
meyer,  69  Fed.  592;  Root  v.  Sontag,  47  Fed. 
309;  Bottle  Seal  Co.  v.  De  la  Vergne  Bottle, 
etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed.  59;  Fougeres  v.  Murbarger, 
44  Fed.  292 ;  West  v.  Rae,  33  Fed.  45 ;  Kaola- 
type  Engraving  Co.  v.  Hoke,  30  Fed.  444-. 

Invalidity  must  be  obvious  and  not  doubt- 
ful see  Hogan  v.  Westmoreland  Specialty  Co., 
154  Fed.  66,  83  C.  C.  A.  178;  General  Electric 
Co.  v.  Campbell,  137  Fed.  600;  Regensberg 
v.  American  Exch.  Cigar  Co.,  130  Fed.  549; 
American  Fibre-Chamois  Co.  v.  Buckskin- 
Fibre  Co.,  72  Fed.  508,  18  C.  C.  A.  662; 
Cleveland  Faucet  Co.  v.  Vulcan  Brass  Co.,  72 
Fed.  505;  Caldwell  v.  Powell,  71  Fed.  970 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  73  Fed.  488, 
19  C.  C.  A.  592] ;  Covert  v.  Travers  Bros.  Co., 
70  Fed.  788;  Heaton-Peninsular  Button- 
Fastener  Co.  v.  Schlochtmeyer,  69  Fed.  592; 
Drainage  Constr.  Co.  v.  Englewood  Sewer  Co.. 
67  Fed.  141;  Rodwell  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Housman, 
58  Fed.  870;  Hanlon  v.  Primrose,  56  Fed. 
600;  Goebel  v.  American  R.  Supply  Co.,  55 
Fed.  825;  Standard  Oil  Co.  v.  Southern  Pac. 
Co.,  42  Fed.  295 ;  Eclipse  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Adkins, 
36  Fed.  554;  Dick  V.  Oil  Well  Supply  Co., 
25  Fed.  105. 

Unless  invalidity  is  so  clear  that  no  evi- 
dence could  change  the  conclusion,  a  de- 
murrer will  not  be  sustained.  A.  R.  Milner 
Seating  Co.  v.  Yesbera,  111  Fed.  386,  49 
C.  C.  A.  397;  Neidich  v.  Fosbenner,  108  Fed. 
266;  Electric  Vehicle  Co.  v.  Winton  Motor- 
Carriage  Co.,  104  Fed.  814;  Ballou  v.  Potter, 
88  Fed.  786;  Patent  Button  Co.  v.  Consoli- 
dated Fastener  Co.,  84  Fed.  189;  Blessing  v. 
John  Trageser  Steam  Copper  Works,  34  Fed. 
753. 

Sufficiency  of  disclosure  in  patent  will  not 
be  passed  upon  on  demurrer.  Dade  v. 
Boorum,  etc.,  Co.,  121  Fed.  135. 

Prior  art  will  not  be  investigated  on  de- 
murrer. Rowe  v.  Blodgett,  etc.,  Co.,  87  Fed. 
868. 

Identity  with  prior  expired  patents  to  the 
same  inventor  will  be  considered  on  demurrer. 
Russell  v.  Kern,  64  Fed.  581  [affirmed  in  69 
Fed.  94,  16  C.  C.  A.  154]. 

[XIII,  C,  13,  b,  (v)] 


Invalidity  of  reissue  when  compared  to 
original  patent  will  be  determined  on  de- 
murrer where  original  patent  and  reissue 
before  court.  Edison  v.  American  Mutoscope, 
etc.,  Co.,  127  Fed.  361 ;  Adams,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Meyrose,  12  Fed.  440. 

Cases  in  which  demurrer  sustained  and  pat- 
ent held  void  see  Lamson  Consol.  Service  Co. 
v.  Siegel-Cooper  Co.,  106  Fed.  734;  Lyons  v. 
Bishop,  95  Fed.  154;  E.  Ingraham  Co.  v. 
E.  N.  Welch  Mfg.  Co.,  92  Fed.  1019,  35 
C.  C.  A.  163;  Warren  Featherbone  Co.  v. 
Warner  Bros.  Co.,  92  Fed.  990;  E.  Ingraham 
Co.  v.  E.  N.  Welch  Mfg.  Co.,  87  Fed.  1000; 
Conley  v.  Marum,  83  Fed.  309;  Strom  Mfg. 
Co.  t\  Weir  Frog  Co.,  75  Fed.  279. 

Cases  in  which  demurrer  overruled  see  Fab- 
ric Coloring  Co.  v.  Alexander  Smith,  etc., 
Carpet  Co.,  109  Fed.  328;  Lyons  v.  Drucker, 
106  Fed.  416,  45  C.  C.  A.  368;  J.  Elwood  Lee 
Co.  v.  B.  F.  Goodrich  Co.,  105  Fed.  627; 
Electric  Vehicle  Co.  v.  Winton  Motor-Car- 
riage Co.,  104  Fed.  814;  Fairies  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Brown,  102  Fed.  508;  Beer  v.  Walbridge,  100 
Fed.  465,  40  C.  C.  "A.  496 ;  Higgin  Mfg.  Co. 
V.  Scherer,  100  Fed.  459,  40  C.  C.  A.  491; 
L.  E.  Waterman  Co.  t\  Vassar  College,  99 
Fed.  564 :  Warren  Featherbone  Co.  v.  Warner 
Bros.  Co.,  92  Fed.  990;  Chandler  Adjustable 
Chair,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Heywood  Bros.,  etc.,  Co., 
91  Fed.  163;  Ballou  v.  Potter,  88  Fed.  786; 
Noe  v.  Prentice,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,284a. 

5.  Phillips  v.  Detroit,  111  U.  S.  604,  4  S.  Ct. 
580,  28   L.  ed.  532;   Terhune  V.   Phillips,   99 
U.  S.  592,  25  L.  ed.  293;  Brown  v.  Piper,  91 
U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200;   Strom  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Weit  Frog  Co.,  83  Fed.  170,  27  C.  C.  A.  502; 
Caldwell  v.  Powell,  71  Fed.  970  [reversed  on 
other   grounds  in   73   Fed.   488,   19   C.   C.   A. 
592] ;  Heaton-Peninsular  Button-Fastener  Co. 
V.  Schlochtmeyer,  69  Fed.  592  [affirmed  in  72 
Fed.  520,  18  C.  C.  A.  674] ;  Root  v.  Sontag, 
47  Fed.  309;  Eclipse  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Adkins,  36 
Fed.  554;  Kaolatype  Engraving  Co.  v.  Hoke, 
30  Fed.  444;  Knapp  v.  Benedict,  26  Fed.  627. 

Court  must  distinguish  between  special 
knowledge  and  common  and  general  knowl- 
edge see  American  Fibre-Chamois  Co.  v.  Buck- 
skin-Fibre Co.,  72  Fed.  508,  18  C.  C.  A.  662 ; 
Cleveland  Faucet  Co.  v.  Vulcan  Brass  Co.,  72 
Fed.  505.  There  must  be  no  doubt  that  the 
knowledge  is  common.  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co. 
v.  Mosheim,  48  Fed.  452. 

6.  Incomplete   or  indefinite   allegations   of 
the  bill  may  be  cured  by  amendment   (Union 
Switch,  etc.*,  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
68    Fed.    914;    New    Departure    Bell    Co.    v. 
Bevin  Bros.  Mfg.  Co.,  64  Fed.  859  [reversed 
on  other  grounds  in  73  Fed.  469,  19  C.  C.  A. 
534];    Ross  v.   Ft.  Wayne,   58   Fed.  404   [re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  63  Fed.  466,   11 
C.  C.  A.  288] ;  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1039 


wise  held  applicable  in  respect  of  multifariousness,7  and  variance  between  the 
allegations  and  proofs.8 

14.  EVIDENCE  9  —  a.  In  General.  The  ordinary  rules  of  evidence  are  applicable 
to  suits  for  infringement,  so  far  as  the  special  nature  of  the  right  in  controversy 
permits  and  except  where  modified  by  special  statutory  provisions.10 


Mather  Electric  Co.,  53  Fed.  244;  New  York 
Grape  Sugar  Co.  v.  Buffalo  Grape  Sugar  Co., 
20  Fed.  505),  and  amendment  is  permitted  to 
bring  iii  some  new  fact  (John  R.  Williams 
Co.  v.  Miller,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  108  Fed.  967; 
Patent-Button  Co.  v.  Pilcher,  95  Fed.  479; 
Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Mustard, 
87  Fed.  336;  Reay  v.  Berlin,  etc.,  Envelope 
Co.,  30  Fed.  448;  Reay  v.  Raynor,  19  Fed. 
308;  Holste  v.  Robertson,  4  Ch.  D.  9,  46 
L.  J.  Ch.  1,  35  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  457,  25 
Wkly.  Rep.  35;  Penn  v.  Bibby,  L.  R.  1  Eq. 
548). 

Amendment  of  answer. —  The  answer  may 
be  amended  by  giving  new  names  of  wit- 
nesses or  new  facts  of  anticipations.  Roemer 
v.  Simon,  95  U.  S.  214,  24  L.  ed.  384;  Stand- 
ard Elevator  Interlock  Co.  v.  Ramsey,  130 
Fed.  151;  Campbell  v.  New  York,  45  Fed. 
243;  Babcock,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Pioneer  Iron- Works, 
34  Fed.  338;  Morehead  v.  Jones,  17  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,791,  3  Wall.  Jr.  306.  Amendment  to 
answer  refused  where  facts  should  have  been 
discovered  and  alleged  originally  (India  Rub- 
ber Comb  Co.  v.  Phelps,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,025,  8  Blatchf.  85,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  315)  ; 
or  where  amendment  would  not  change  the 
decision  (Richardson  v.  Croft,  11  Fed.  800). 

Amendment  to  deny  former  admissions  will 
be  refused.  Pentlarge  v.  Beeston,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,964,  4  Ban.  &  A.  23,  15  Blatchf. 
347;  Ruggles  v.  Eddy,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,118,  1  Ban.  &  A.  92,  11  Blatchf.  524. 

7.  Patents  capable  of  conjoint  use. —  Suit 
on  several  patents  is  not  multifarious  where 
they  are  capable  of  conjoint  use  and  such 
use  is  alleged.  Gamewell  Fire-Alarm  Tel.  Co. 
17.  Chillicothe,  7  Fed.  351 ;  Gillespie  v.  Cum- 
mings,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,434,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
587,  3  Sawy.  259;  Meerse  v.  Allen,  16  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  9,*393a;  Nourse  v.  Allen,  18  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,367,  4  Blatchf.  376,  3  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  63.  Unless  conjoint  use  by  defendant 
is  alleged,  a  suit  on  several  patents  is  multi- 
farious. Western  Tel.  Mfg.  Co.  v.  American 
Electric  Tel.  Co.,  137  Fed.  603;  Russell  v. 
Winchester  Repeating  Arms  Co.,  97  Fed.  634; 
Louden  Mach.  Co.  v.  Ward,  96  Fed.  232; 
Union  Switch,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Philadelphia,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  833 ;  Hayes  v.  Dayton,  8  Fed. 
702,  18  Blatchf.  420;  Hayes  v.  Bickelhoupt, 
11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,2616,  19  Off.  Gaz.  177; 
Nellis  v.  McLanahan,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,099, 
6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  286. 

A  bill  primarily  for  infringement  is  not 
rendered  multifarious  by  setting  out  a  con- 
tract between  plaintiff  and  defendant  bind- 
ing defendant  not  to  contest  the  validity  of 
the  patent.  Dunham  v.  Bent,  72  Fed.  60. 

A  bill  claiming  relief  for  interfering  patents 
and  infringement  is  not  multifarious.  Stone- 
metz  Printers'  Mach.  Co.  v.  Brown  Co.,  46 
Fed.  72. 


A  bill  on  expired  and  unexpired  patents  is 
not  multifarious. — Huntington  Dry  Pulverizer 
Co.  t;.  Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Co.,  130 
Fed.  558;  Roemer  v.  Logowitz,  20  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  11,996. 

A  bill  for  infringement  praying  cancella- 
tion of  assignment  is  not  multifarious.  Ath- 
erton  Mach.  Co.  v.  Atwood  Morrison  Co  102 
Fed.  949,  43  C.  C.  A..  72. 

A  bill  praying,  relief  from  infringement  of  a 
patent  and  unfair  competition  is  multifari- 
ous. George  Frost  Co.  v.  Kora  Co.,  136  Fed. 
487  {.affirmed  in  140  Fed.  987,  71  C.  C.  A. 
19] ;  Ball,  etc.,  Fastener  Co.  v.  Cohn,  90 
Fed.  664. 

A  bill  joining  infringement  of  a  patent  and 
slander  is  multifarious.  Fougeres  v.  Mur- 
barger,  44  Fed.  292. 

A  bill  to  enjoin  infringement  and  the  use  of 
the  name  applied  to  the  article  by  the  pat- 
entee is  not  multifarious.  Adam  v.  Folger, 
120  Fed.  260,  56  C.  C.  A.  540;  Jaros  Hygie- 
nic Underwear  Co.  i\  Fleece  Hygiene  Un- 
derwear Co.,  60  Fed.  622. 

8.  Tryon  v.  White,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,208, 
Pet.  C.  C.  96,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  64. 

9.  See,  generally,  EVIDENCE. 

10.  See,  generally,  EVIDENCE. 

Prior  patents  and  publications. —  Prior  pat- 
ents are  admissible  in  actions  at  law  under 
the  general  issue  without  any  special  notice, 
and  in  equity  suits  without  any  averment 
in  the  answer  touching  the  subject,  to  show 
the  state  of  the  art  (Grier  v.  Wilt,  120  U.  S. 
412,  7  S.  Ct.  718,  30  L.  ed.  712;  Jones  v. 
Cyphers,  126  Fed.  753,  62  C.  C.  A.  21;  Par- 
sons v.  New  Home  Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  125 
Fed.  386  [affirmed  in  134  Fed.  394,  67  C.  C.  A. 
392];  Myers  v.  Sternheim,  97  Fed.  625,  38 
C.  C.  A.  345;  American  Saddle  Co.  v.  Hogg, 
1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  315,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  353, 
Holmes  133,  2  Off.  Gaz.  59.  But  see  Clark 
v.  Adie,  3  Ch.  D.  134,  45  L.  J.  Ch.  228,  35 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  349,  24  Wkly.  Rep.  1007  [af- 
firmed in  2  App.  Cas.  423,  46  L.  J.  Ch.  598, 
27  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  1,  26  Wkly.  Rep.  45]; 
Atty.-Gen.  v.  Taylor,  Prec.  Ch.  59,  24  Eng. 
Reprint  29),  and  to  aid  the  court  in  the 
construction  of  a  patent  sued  on  (Grier  v. 
Wilt,  supra;  Eachus  v.  Broomall,  115  U.  S. 
429,  6  S.  Ct.  229,  29  L.  ed.  419;  Parsons  v. 
New  Home  Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  supra),  but 
not  to  show  want  of  novelty  in  the  inven- 
tion claimed  in  complainant's  patent  (Grier 
v.  Wilt,  supra;  American  Saddle  Co.  v.  Hogg, 
supra;  Howe  v.  Williams,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,778,  2  Cliff.  245,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  395), 
or  for  the  purpose  of  showing  anticipation 
(Jones  v.  Cyphers,  supra.  See  also  Myers 
i?.  Brown,  102  Fed.  250,  42  C.  C.  A.  320), 
and  a  prior  foreign  publication  is  competent 
as  evidence  in  regard  to  the  state  of  the 
art,  and  as  a  foundation  for  the  inquiry 

[XIII,  C,  14,  a] 


1040     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


b.  Presumptions  and  Burden  of  Proof.     The  patent  is  presumptively  valid 
and  the  burden  is  on  defendant  to  show  its  invalidity11  beyond  a  reasonable 


whether  it  required  invention  to  pass  from 
a  structure  set  forth  in  the  publication  to 
the  patented  structure  (French  v.  Carter, 
137  U.  S.  239,  11  S.  Ct.  90,  34  L.  ed.  664). 
Patents  relied  on  must  be  properly  intro- 
duced. Oregon  Imp.  Co.  v.  Excelsior  Coal 
Co.,  132  U.  S.  215,  10  S.  Ct.  54,  33  L.  ed. 
344;  Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
516,  20  L.  ed.  33;  Vermont  Farm  Mach.  Co. 
v.  Gibson,  56  Fed.  143,  5  C.  C.  A.  451 ;  Alaska 
Refrigerator  Co.  v.  Wisconsin  Refrigerator 
Co.,  47  Fed.  324;  National  Pump  Cylinder 
Co.  v.  Simmons  Hardware  Co.,  18  Fed.  324, 
5  McCrary  592;  Cahoon  v.  Ring,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,292,  1  Cliff.  592,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  397; 
Grover,  etc.,  Sewing-Mach.  Co.  v.  Sloat,  11 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,846,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  112. 

Ex  parte  affidavits  are  not  admissible. 
Lilienthal  v.  Washburn,  8  Fed.  707,  4  Woods 
65. 

Decision  and  evidence  in  interference  in- 
volving different  parties  are  not  admissible. 
Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Roberts, 
125  Fed.  6. 

Admissions  or  declarations. —  It  is  com- 
petent to  prove  admissions  or  declarations 
by  a  party  to  the  suit  bearing  upon  the  ques- 
tion at  issue.  National  Cash-Register  Co.  v. 
Leland,  94  Fed.  502,  37  C.  C.  A.  372;  Rose 
v.  Hirsh,  77  Fed.  469,  23  C.  C.  A.  246; 
Wright  v.  Postel,  44  Fed.  352;  Sugar  Ap- 
paratus Mfg.  Co.  v.  Yaryan  Mfg.  Co.,  43  Fed. 
140;  Thacher  Heating  Co.  v.  Drummond,  23 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,865,  3  Ban.  &  A.  138.  Ad- 
missions by  the  inventor  are  not  binding 
against  the  assignee.  Wilson  v.  Simpson,  9 
How.  (U.  S.)  109,  13  L.  ed.  66. 

Opinion  expressed  before  suit  is  not  binding. 
Osgood  Dredge  Co.  v.  Metropolitan  Dredge 
Co.,  75  Fed.  670,  21  C.  C.  A.  491. 

Testimony  that  witness  never  heard  of  in- 
vention before  plaintiff  made  it  is  not  admis- 
sible. Hitchcock  v.  Shoninger  Melodeon  Co., 
11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,537. 

Evidence  of  purchase  by  plaintiff's  agent 
from  defendant  for  purpose  of  showing  in- 
fringement is  admissible.  Badische  Anilin, 
etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Klopstein,  125  Fed.  543; 
De  Florez  v.  Raynolds,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,742, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  292,  14  Blatchf.  505.  Contra, 
Byam  v.  Bullard,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,262,  1 
Curt.  100. 

Names  of  customers. —  Defendant  is  not 
compelled  to  give  names  of  customers  where 
infringement  and  validity  denied.  Roberts 
v.  Walley,  14  Fed.  167. 

Experiments  conducted  with  a  view  to  liti- 
gation are  looked  on  with  distrust.  Young  v. 
Fernie,  4  Giffard  577,  10  Jur.  N.  S.  926,  10 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  861,  4  New  Rep.  218,  12 
Wkly.  Rep.  901,  66  Eng.  Reprint  836. 

Communications  to  patent  agent  as  such 
are  not  privileged.  Moseley  v.  Victoria  Rub- 
ber Co.,  55  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  482. 

Inadmissible  evidence  see  St.  Paul  Plow- 
Works  v.  Starling,  140  U.  S.  184,  11  S.  Ct. 
803,  35  L.  ed.  404;  Blanchard  v.  Putnam,  8 

[XIII,  C,  14,  bj 


Wall.  (U.  S.)  420,  19  L.  ed.  433;  Harper, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Wilgus,  56  Fed.  587,  6  C.  C.  A. 
45;  Seibert  Cylinder  Oil-Cup  Co.  v.  William 
Powell  Co.,  38  fed.  600;  Judson  v.  Cope,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,565,  1  Bond  327,  1  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  615. 

Weight  of  evidence  see  Brill  v.  St.  Louis 
Car  Co.,  80  Fed.  909;  Dobson  v.  Graham,  49 
Fed.  17  [affirmed  in  154  U.  S.  501,  14  S.  Ct. 
1145,  38  L.  ed.  1076];  Evans  v.  Eaton,  8 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559,  Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  68;  Woodman  v.  Stimpson,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,979,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  98  [.re- 
versed on  other  grounds  in  10  Wall.  117,  19 
L.  ed.  866]. 

Rebuttal. —  Prima  facie  evidence  cannot  be 
put  in  as  rebuttal.  Smith  v.  Uhrich,  94 
Fed.  865;  American  Paper  Barrel  Co.  v.  Lar- 
away,  28  Fed.  141;  Cahoon  v.  Ring,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,292,  1  Cliff.  592,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
397;  Stainthorp  v.  Humiston,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,281,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  107. 

Invention  prior  to  date  proved  by  defend- 
ant may  be  shown  on  rebuttal.  St.  Paul 
Plow-Works  v.  Starling,  140  U.  S.  184,  4 
S.  Ct.  803,  35  L.  ed.  404  [affirming  29  Fed. 
790]. 

11.  Atwood-Morrison  Co.  v.  Sipp  Electric 
Co.,  136  Fed.  859  [reversed  on  other  grounds 
in  142  Fed.  149] ;  De  Lamar  v.  De  Lamar 
Min.  Co.,  110  Fed.  538  [affirmed  in  117  Fed. 
240,  54  C.  C.  A.  272] ;  National  Co.  v.  Belcher, 
71  Fed.  876,  18  C.  C.  A.  375;  Williames  v. 
Bernard,  41  Fed.  358;  American  Bell  Tel. 
Co.  v.  Molecular  Tel.  Co.,  32  Fed.  214,  23 
Blatchf.  253;  Hoe  v.  Cottrell,  1  Fed.  597,  17 
Blatchf.  546;  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
217,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  530,  2  Woodb.  &  M. 
121;  Brady  v.  Atlantic  Works,  3  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  1,794,  2  Ban.  &  A.  436,  4  Cliff.  408,  10 
Off.  Gaz.  702;  Brown  v.  Whittemore,  4  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  2,033,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  524,  2  Off. 
Gaz.  248;  Howes  v.  Nute,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,790,  4  Cliff.  173,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  263; 
Jordan  v.  Dobson,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,519,  2 
Abb.  398,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  232,  7  Phila. 
(Pa.)  533;  Pitts  v.  Hall,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,192,  2  Blatchf.  229,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  441. 

Where  it  does  not  appear  that  the  patent 
was  granted  after  proper  consideration  of  the 
prior  art,  the  presumption  of  validity  is  not 
so  strong.  American  Soda  Fountain  Co.  v. 
Sample,  130  Fed.  145,  64  C.  C.  A.  497;  Cleve- 
land Foundry  Co.  v.  Kaufmann,  120  Fed. 
658  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  135  Fed. 
360,  68  C.  C.  A.  658] ;  Earle  v.  Wanamaker, 
87  Fed.  740.  Where  defendant  shows  use  by 
others  before  application  the  burden  of  proof 
shifts  to  patentee  to  show  prior  invention. 
Clark  Thread  Co.  r.  Willimantic  Linen  Co., 
140  U.  S.  481,  11  S.  Ct.  846,  35  L.  ed.  521; 
Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Consolidated  Car- 
Heating  Co.,  67  Fed.  121,  14  C.  C.  A.  232; 
Caverly  v.  Deere,  52  Fed.  758. 

Presumption  as  to  date  of  invention. —  The 
date  of  application  printed  in  the  patent  is 
presumably  the  date  of  invention.  Drewson 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1041 


doubt.12  But  the  burden  is  on  plaintiff  to  prove  infringement,13  and  that  notice 
of  his  rights  was  given  by  marking  the  patented  article.14  He  must  also  prove 
facts  which  will  show  the  amount  of  damages.15 

e.  Evidence  as  to  Invalidity  of  Patent.  Evidence  of  any  fact  tending  to 
show  that  the  patent  is  invalid  is  admissible,16  provided  proper  basis  for  it  is  laid 
in  the  pleadings  or  under  the  general  issue  and  provided  thirty  days'  notice  in 
writing  is  given  to  plaintiff  or  his  attorney.  To  prove  previous  invention, 
knowledge,  or  use  of  a  thing  patented  defendant  must  state  the  names  of  the 
patentees,  dates  of  the  patents,  the  names  and  residences  of  the  alleged  prior 
users,  and  where  and  by  whom  the  invention  was  used.17 


v.  Hartje  Paper  Mfg.  Co.,   131   Fed.  734,  65 
C.  C.  A'.  548. 

Technical  defenses  must  be  clearly  proved. 
A.  B.  Dick  Co.  v.  Fuerth,  57  Fed.  834. 

12.  Deer  ing   v.   Winona   Harvester   Works, 
155  U.  S.  286,  15  S.  Ct.  118,  39  L.  ed.  153; 
Washburn,    etc.,   Mfg.    Co.   v.   Beat   'Em   All 
Barbed-Wire   Co.,    143   U.   S.    275,    12   S.   Ct. 
443,  36  L.  ed.   154;   Western  Electric  Co.  v. 
Home  Tel.  Co.,  85  Fed.  649;  Osgood  Dredge 
Co.    v.   Metropolitan   Dredging   Co.,    75    Fed. 
670,  21  C.  C.  A.  491;  Frankfort  Whisky  Proc- 
ess Co.  v.  Mill  Creek  Distilling  Co.,  37  Fed. 
533;    Tompkins    f.    Gage,    24   Fed.    Cas.   No. 
14,088,  5  Blatchf.  268,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  577; 
WTood  v.  Cleveland  Rolling-Mill  Co.,  30  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  17,941,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  550. 

13.  Infringement  is  a  tort  which  must  be 
proved  and  not  left  to  conjecture.     Bates  v. 
Coe,  98  U.  S.  31,  25  L.  ed.  68;  Elizabeth  v. 
American  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.,  97  U.  S. 
126,  24  L.  ed.   1000;  National  Casket  Co.  v. 
Stolts,  135  Fed.  534,  68  C.  C.  A.  84;  King  v. 
Anderson,  90  Fed.  500;   Stirling  Co.  v.  Pier- 
point  Boiler  Co.,  72  Fed.  780,  77  Fed.  1007, 
22  C.  C.  A.  680;  Masten  v.  Hunt,  51  Fed.  216 
[affirmed  in  55  Fed.  78,  5  C.  C.  A.  42] ;  Royer 
u.  Chicago  Mfg.  Co.,  20  Fed.  853;   National 
Car-Brake   Shoe  Co.  v.  Detroit,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
4  Fed.  224;  Cook  v.  Howard,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,160,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  269;  Dixon  v.  Moyer, 
7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,931,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  324, 
4  Wash.  68;  Hodge  v.  Hudson  River  R.  Co., 
12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,559,  6  Blatchf.  85,  3  Fish. 
Pat.    Cas.   410;    Hudson   v.   Draper,    12    Fed. 
Cas.  No.  6,834,  4  Cliff.  178,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
256 ;  Parker  v.  Stiles,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,749, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  319,  5  McLean  44;   Sands  v. 
Wardwell,   21   Fed.   Cas.  No.    12,306,  3   Cliff. 
277;   Betts  v.  Willmott,  L.  R.  6  Ch.  239,  25 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  188,  19  Wkly.  Rep.  369. 

Use  of  entire  combination  and  not  merely 
part  must  be  shown.  Vance  v.  Campbell,  1 
Black  (U.  S.)  427,  17  L.  ed.  168;  Tatum  v. 
Gregory,  41  Fed.  142. 

Sale  at  defendant's  place  of  business  by  an 
employee  is  presumably  a  sale  by  defendant. 
Hutler  v.  De  Q.  Bottle  Stopper  Co.,  128  Fed. 
283,  62  C.  C.  A.  652. 

Use  of  device  before  patent  raises  no  pre- 
sumption of  infringement  afterward.  Brill 
v.  St.  Louis  Car  Co.,  80  Fed.  909. 

In  a  suit  against  a  mere  user  evidence 
should  be  convincing.  Marcus  v.  Sutton,  124 
Fed.  74. 

Where  infringement  is  not  explicitly  de- 
nied, little  proof  is  necessary.  Hutter  v.  De  Q. 
[66] 


Bottle  Stopper  Co.,  119  Fed.  190;  Gear  v. 
Fitch,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,290,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
573,  16  Off.  Gaz.  1231;  Goodyear  v.  Berry, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,556,  2  Bond  189,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  439. 

Failure  of  defendant  to  disclose  what  he 
uses  justifies  presumption  of  infringement. 
Read  v.  Schulze-Berge,  78  Fed.  493;  Ely  v. 
Monson,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,431, 
4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  64;  Piper  v.  Brown,  19 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,181,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  240, 
Holmes  196,  3  Off.  Gaz.  97. 

Identity  of  product  raises  presumption 
that  process  is  the  same.  Matheson  v.  Camp- 
bell, 77  Fed.  280. 

Where  use  is  proved  the  burden  is  on  de- 
fendant to  show  license.  Armat  Moving 
Picture  Co.  v.  Edison  Mfg.  Co.,  121  Fed.  559 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  125  Fed.  939, 
60  C.  C.  A.  380]  ;  Searls  v.  Bouton,  12  Fed. 
140,  20  Blatchf.  426;  Watson  v.  Smith,  7 
Fed.  350;  Day  v.  New  England  Car-Spring 
Co.,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,688. 

Insufficient  proof  of  infringement. —  Edison 
Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Kaelber,  76  Fed.  804; 
Commoss  v.  Somers,  49  Fed.  920;  Judson 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Burge-Donahoe  Co.,  47  Fed.  463; 
Parsons  v.  Colgate,  15  Fed.  600,  21  Blatchf. 
171;  Standard  Measuring  Mach.  Co.  v. 
Teague,  15  Fed.  390. 

Sufficient  proof  of  infringement  see  White 
v.  Hunter,  47  Fed.  819;  Schneider  v.  Missouri 
Glass  Co.,  36  Fed.  582;  Kiesele  v.  Haas,  32 
Fed.  794;  Peterson  v.  Simpkins,  25  Fed.  486. 

14.  Lorain  Steel  Co.  v.  New  York  Switch, 
etc.,  Co.,  153  Fed.  205. 

Effect  of  admission  of  notice  see  Lorain 
Steel  Co.  v.  New  York  Switch,  etc.,  Co.,  153 
Fed.  205. 

15.  Robertson  v.  Blake,  94  U.  S.   728,  24 
L.  ed.  245;    Lee  v.  Pillsbury,  49   Fed.   747; 
National  Car-Brake  Shoe  Co.  v.  Terre  Haute 
Car,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Fed.  514;  Burdell  v.  Denig, 
4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,142,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  588; 
Carter   v.    Baker,   5   Fed.    Cas.   No.   2,472,   4 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  404,  1  Sawy.  512.     See  also 
supra,  XIII,  C,  12,  a,  b. 

Where  the  amount  of  actual  damages  is  not 
proved,  nominal  damages  only  may  be  col- 
lected. New  York  v.  Ransom,  23  How. 
(U.  S.)  487,  16  L.  ed.  515. 

Doubts  resolved  against  wanton  infringer 
see  Rose  v.  Hirsh,  94  Fed.  177,  36  C.  C.  A. 
132.  51  L.  R.  A.  801. 

16.  See  supra,  XIII,  A,  1. 

17.  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)   §  4920.    And  see 
supra,  XIII,  C,  3,  d. 

[XIII,  C,  14,  e] 


1042     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


d.  Expert  Witnesses.     It  is  proper  in  patent  cases  to  produce  the  testimony 
of  expert  witnesses  to  explain  the  inventions  and  the  differences  between  inven- 
tions ; 18  but  their  testimony  is  not  necessarily  accepted  as  controlling  contrary  to 
the  judgment  of  the  court,19  nor  is  mere  opinion  evidence  admissible.20 

e.  Estoppel.     Disclaimers21  and  admissions  made  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
application  in  the  patent  office  are  binding  upon  the  patentee  and  copies  of  the 
office  records  are  admissible  to  prove  them.22     Defendant  cannot  as  against  his 
assignee  produce  evidence  to  show  that  the  patent  assigned  by  him  is  invalid  or 
that  the  assignee's  title  is  not  good.23 

f.  Evidence  as  to  Infringement.     Evidence  is  admissible  which  tends  to  show 
whether  or  not  the  claims  of  the  patent  properly  construed  apply  to  the  alleged 
infringing  device.     Prior  patents  and  publications  are  admissible  as  bearing  upon 
the  scope  but  not  the  validity  of  the  patent  in  suit,  even  where  they  are  not  set 
up  in  the  pleadings  or  formal  notice.24 

g.  Secret  Inventions.     A  witness  is  not  required  to  disclose  a  secret  invention 
or  discovery  made  or  owned  by  himself.25 

h.  Proving  Patents  and  Patent  Office  Records.     A   certified   copy   of   any 
record,  book,  paper,  or  drawing  belonging  to  the  patent  office  and  of  letters 


18.  Fenton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Office  Specialty  Co., 
12  App.   Cas.    (D.   C.)    201;    National   Cash- 
Register  Co.  v.  Leland,  94  Fed.  502,  37  C.  C. 
A.    372 ;    American    Linoleum    Mfg.    Co.    v. 
Nairn   Linoleum   Co.,   44   Fed.    755;    Conover 
v.  Rapp,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,124,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  57 ;  Hudson  v.  Draper,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,834,   4   Cliff.    178,   4    Fish.   Pat.    Cas.    256; 
Badische   Anilin,  etc.,    Fabrik  v.   Levenstein, 
24   Ch.   D.   156,  52  L.   J.  Ch.   704,  48  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  822,  31  Wkly.  Rep.  913  [affirmed 
in  12  App.  Cas.  710,  57  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  853] ; 
Seed  v.  Higgins,   8   H.   L.   Cas.   550,   6   Jur. 
N.  S.  1264,  30  L.  J.  Q.  B.  314,  3  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  101,  11  Eng.  Reprint  544.     Where  dif- 
ficult   questions    are    involved,    experts    are 
necessary.     Fay  v.  Mason,  127  Fed.  325,  62 
C.  C.  A.  159;  Waterman  v.  Shipman,  55  Fed. 
982,  5  C.  C.  A.  371 ;  Miller  v.  Smith,  5  Fed. 
359.     Where  questions  involved  are  clear,  ex- 
perts should  not  be  allowed.     Ely  v.  Monson, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,431,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  64.     Differences  in  designs  may  be 
pointed  out.  Myers  v.  Sternheim,  97  Fed.  625, 
38  C.  C.  A.  345. 

Model  is  the  best  evidence  of  character  of 
machine.  Swift  v.  Whisen,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,700,  2  Bond  115,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  343. 

19.  Overweight     Counterbalance     Elevator 
Co.  v.  Improved  Order  Red  Men's  Hall  Assoc., 
94   Fed.    155,   36   C.   C.   A.    125;    Hanifen  v. 
Godshalk  Co.,  84  Fed.  649,  28  C.  C.  A.  507; 
Spaulding  v.  Tucker,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,220, 
Deady  649. 

Evidence  of  experiments  accepted  where  not 
contradicted.  Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik 
V.  Klipstein,  etc.,  Co.,  125  Fed.  543;  A.  B. 
Dick  Co.  v.  Belke,  86  Fed.  149. 

Testimony  of  experts  as  to  the  result  of 
experiments  is  not  to  be  lightly  accepted. 
National  Co.  v.  Belcher,  71  Fed.  876,  18 
C.  C.  A.  375. 

Conflict  of  testimony  see  B6n6  v.  Jeantet, 
129  U.  S.  683,  9  S.  Ct.  428,  32  L.  ed.  803. 

20.  Corning  v.   Burden,   15   How.    (U.  S.) 
252,    14   L.   ed.   683;   National   Cash-Register 

[XIII,  C,  14,  d] 


Co.  v.  Leland,  94  Fed.  502,  37  C.  C.  A.  372; 
Lee  v.  Pillsbury,  49  Fed.  747. 

21.  See  supra,  IX,  E. 

22.  Crawford  v.  Heysinger,  123  U.  S.  589, 
8  S.  Ct.  399,  31  L.  ed.  269;  Corning  v.  Bur- 
den,   15   How.    (U.   S.)    252,    14  L.   ed.    683; 
Philadelphia,   etc.,   Co.  v.   Stimpson,    14   Pet. 
(U.  S.)    448,    10   L.   ed.   535;    Richardson   v. 
Campbell,  72  Fed.  525;   Emerson  v.  Hogg,  8 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,440,  2  Blatchf.  1,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.  77.   See  supra,  X,  A,  5. 

23.  See  supra,  VI,  F,  3. 

24.  Grier  v.  Wilt,  120  U.  S.  412,  7  S.  Ct. 
718,  30  L.  ed.  712;  Brown  v.  Piper,  91  U.  S. 
37,  23  L.  ed.  200;  Jones  v.  Cyphers,  126  Fed. 
753,  62  C.  C.  A.  21;   Parsons  v.  New  Home 
Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  125  Fed.  386  [affirmed  in 
134  Fed.   394,   67    C.   C.   A.   392]  ;    Myers  v. 
Brown,  102  Fed.  250,  42  C.  C.  A.  320;   Uni- 
versal Winding  Co.  v.  Willimantic  Linen  Co., 
82  Fed.  228;  Dayton  Loop,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ruhl, 
55   Fed.   649;    Forschner   v.   Baumgarten,   26 
Fed.   858;   American   Saddle   Co.  v.  Hogg,    1 
Fed.    Cas.    No.   315,   5    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.   353, 
Holmes  133,  2  Off.  Gaz.  59;  Middletown  Tool 
Co.  v.  Judd,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,536,  3  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  141;   Westlake  V.  Cartler,  29  Fed. 
Cas.   No.    17,451,    6    Fish.    Pat.    Cas.    519,   4 
Off.  Gaz.  636. 

Evidence  held  insufficient  to  show  sale  of 
infringing  article  within  district  essential 
to  give  jurisdiction  see  Gray  v.  Grinberg,  147 
Fed.  732  [affirmed  in  159  Fed.  138]. 

25.  U.'  S.  Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4908    [U.   S. 
Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    3390];    Stokes    Bros. 
Mfg.  Co.  v.   Heller,  56  Fed.  297;   Dobson  v. 
Graham,  49  Fed.  17. 

Other  methods  of  performing  the  invention 
claimed  in  the  patent  are  not  protected  as 
secret  under  U.  S.  Rev.  St.  (1878)  §  4908 
[U.  S.  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  3390].  Dornan 
v.  Reefer,  49  Fed.  462. 

Patent  office  rule  of  secrecy  of  application 
has  been  held  not  to  apply  in  court.  Dia- 
mond Match  Co.  v.  Oshkosh  Match  Works, 
63  Fed.  984. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1043 


patent  may  be  received  in  evidence  in  place  of  the  originals.26  A  copy  of  a 
foreign  patent  certified  by  the  commissioner  of  patents  of  the  United  States  will 
be  accepted  as  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  fact  of  the  granting  of  such  patent 
and  of  the  date  and  contents  thereof.27  The  printed  copies  of  specifications  and 
drawings  of  patents  deposited  in  the  capitols  of  the  various  states  and  territories 
and  certified  by  the  commissioner  of  patents  will  be  received  as  evidence  of  all 
matters  therein  contained.28 

i.  Judicial  Notice.  Courts  may  properly  take  judicial  notice  of  facts  that 
may  be  regarded  as  part  of  the  common  knowledge  of  every  person  of  ordinary 
understanding  and  intelligence.29  The  court  is  permitted  to  avail  itself  of  com- 
mon knowledge  in  regard  to  matters  of  science,  and  by  that  knowledge  to  define 
the  scope  of  the  patent.30  The  court  may  take  judicial  notice  of  a  thing  in 
common  use  throughout  the  country.31  The  court  may  refer  to  dictionaries  and 
encyclopedias  for  the  definition  and  scope  of  scientific  terms  or  names,  when 
necessary  to  go  outside  of  the  record,  or  where  the  testimony  of  experts  is  con- 
flicting.32 For  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  state  of  the  art  the  court  may 
take  judicial  notice  of  what  is  disclosed  by  its  own  records  in  a  previous  case 
involving  devices  appertaining  to  the  same  art.33  The  courts  will  not  take 
judicial  notice  of  patents  or  inventions.84 

15.  ISSUES,  PROOF,  AND  VARIANCE.  The  issue  of  fraud  in  the  reissue  of  a  patent 
can  only  be  raised  by  distinct  and  special  allegations  in  the  plea  or  answer.35  The 
general  rule  that  the  proof  and  pleading  must  correspond  applies  to  actions  at 
law  and  suits  in  equity  for  infringement  of  patents.36  In  actions  at  law  for 


26.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §    892    [U.   S. 
Comp.    St.     (1901)     p.    673];     Crawford    v. 
Heysinger,   123  U.  S.   589,   8   S.   Ct.  399,   31 
L.  "ed.    269;    Corning    v.    Burden,    15    How. 
(U.    S.)    252,    14   L.    ed.   683;    Philadelphia, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Stimpson,   14  Pet.    (U.   S.)    448, 
10   L.   ed.    535;    Richardson  v.   Campbell,   72 
Fed.  525;  Emerson  v.  Hogg,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
4,440,  2  Blatchf.  1,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  77. 

Assignment  of  patent. —  That  an  assign- 
ment of  a  patent  was  recorded  and  is  pro- 
duced and  put  in  evidence  by  a  subsequent 
assignee  in  a  suit  for  infringement  is  suf- 
ficient evidence  of  its  delivery.  Shelby  Steel 
Tube  Co.  v.  Delaware  Seamless  Tube  Co.,  151 
Fed.  64  [affirmed  on  other  grounds  in  160 
Fed.  928]. 

27.  U.   S.  Rev.   St.    (1878)    §   893    [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)  p.  673]. 

Foreign  patent  may  be  proved  by  copy  un- 
der seal  of  country.  Galling  v.  Newell,  9 
Ind.  572;  Schoerken  V.  Swift,  7  Fed.  469, 
19  Blatchf.  209. 

28.  U.    S.   Rev.    St.    (1878)    §    894    [U.   S. 
Comp.  St.   (1901)  p.  673]. 

29.  Phillips  v.  Detroit,    111   U.   S.   604,   4 
S.  Ct.  580,   28  L.  ed.  532;   King  v.  Gallum, 
109  U.  S.  99,  3  S.  Ct.  85,  27  L.  ed.  870. 

Of  facts  cited  in  encyclopedias,  dictionaries, 
or  other  publications,  judicial  notice  will  not 
be  taken  unless  they  are  of  such  universal 
notoriety  and  so  generally  understood  that 
they  may  be  regarded  as  forming  part  of 
the  common  knowledge  of  every  person. 
Kaolatype  Engraving  Co.  v.  Hoke,  30  Fed. 
444. 

30.  Knapp  v.  Benedict,  26  Fed.  627. 

31.  Black  Diamond  Coal-Min.  Co.  v.  Excel- 
sior Coal  Co.,  156  U.  S.  611,   15  S.  Ct.  482, 
39  L.  ed.  553;  Phillips  v.  Detroit,  116  U.  S. 


604,  4  S.  Ct.  580,  28  L.  ed.  532;  King  V. 
Gallun,  109  U.  S.  99,  3  S.  Ct.  85,  27  L.  ed. 
870;  Slawson  v.  Grand  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 
U.  S.  649,  2  S.  Ct.  663,  27  L.  ed.  576;  Ter- 
hune  v.  Phillips,  99  U.  S.  592,  25  L.  ed.  293 ; 
Brown  v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200; 
Root  v.  Sontag,  47  Fed.  309. 

Where  the  court  has  the  slightest  doubt 
that  such  was  the  fact,  it  will  not  take  judi- 
cial notice  that  certain  similar  articles  ex- 
hibited at  the  argument  were  in  use  before 
the  date  of  the  patent.  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  Mosheim,  48  Fed.  452. 

32.  Panzl  v.  Battle  Island  Paper,  etc.,  Co., 
132  Fed.  607. 

33.  American     Salesbook     Co.     v.     Carter- 
Crume   Co.,    125  Fed.   499    [reversed  in  open 
court  without  opinion  in  129  Fed.  1004,  62 
C.   C.   A.    679] ;    Cushman   Paper-Box   Mach. 
Co.  v.  Goddard,  95  Fed.  664,  37  C.  C.  A.  221. 

34.  American     Salesbook     Co.     v.     Carter- 
Grume   Co.,   125   Fed.   499    [reversed  in  open 
court  without  opinion  in   129   Fed.   1004,  62 
C.  C.  A.  679]  ;  Bottle  Seal  Co.  v.  De  la  Vergne 
Bottle,  etc.,  Co.,  47  Fed.  59. 

35.  Blake  v.  Stafford,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,504, 
6  Blatchf.  195,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  294. 

36.  New   York    Belting,    etc.,    Co.   V.   New 
Jersey    Car-Spring,    etc.,    Co.,    48    Fed.    556 
[reversed  on  other  grounds  in  53   Fed.  810, 
4  C.  C.  A.  21];    Allis  v.  Buckstaff,   13   Fed. 
879;    Roberts    v.    Buck,    20    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
11,897,   6   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.   325,   Holmes  224, 
3  Off.  Gaz.  268. 

The  court  cannot  take  notice  of  any  proof 
concerning  which  there  is  not  a  corresponding 
allegation.  Serls  v.  Bouton,  12  Fed.  140,  20 
Blatchf.  426;  Marks  v.  Fox,  6  Fed.  727,  18 
Blatchf.  502 ;  Howe  v.  Williams,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,778,  2  Cliff.  245,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  395. 

[XIII,  C,  15] 


[30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


infringements  of  patents  the  defendant  may,  under  the  general  issue,  show  the 
prior  state  of  the  art,37  or  that  the  patentee  is  not  the  original  inventor,38  or  give 
in  evidence  the  act  of  congress  relating  to  his  rights.39  ^So  too  defendant  may 
give  evidence  of  the  use  of  a  machine  by  other  persons  in  other  places  than  those 
mentioned  in  a  notice  of  special  matter,  where  the  general  issue  is  pleaded.40  An 
averment  in  a  declaration  in  an  action  for  infringement  that  disclaimers  were 
duly  and  legally  executed  in  writing  and  accepted  by  the  commissioner  is  suffi- 
cient to  enable  plaintiff  to  give  evidence  of  their  execution  as  required  by 
statute.41 

16.  TRIALS  IN  ACTIONS  AT  LAW  —  a.  In  General.  The  ordinary  rules  of  practice 
and  procedure  in  civil  actions  apply.42 

b.  Questions  For  Court  and  Jury.  It  is  for  the  court  to  instruct  the  jury  as 
to  the  law,43  and  this  includes  a  definition  of  the  scope  and  meaning  of  the 
patent,44  and  it  is  for  the  jury  to  find  the  facts  and  apply  the  law  as  expounded.45 


Slightest  variance  fatal.— When  a  decla- 
ration in  an  action  for  the  infringement  of  a 
patent  right  professes  to  set  forth  the  speci- 
fication in  the  patent  as  part  of  the  grant, 
the  slightest  variance  is  fatal.  Tryon  v. 
White,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,208,  Pet.  C.  C. 
96,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  64. 

37.  Brown  v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed. 
200. 

38.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559, 
Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  68,  holding 
further    that,    where     the    general    issue    is 
pleaded,  there  is  no  limitation  of  the  period 
in  which  defendant  may  show  that  the  pat- 
entee is  not  the  original  inventor. 

39.  Kneass  v.  Schuylkill  Bank,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,875,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  303,  4  Wash.  9. 

40.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,559, 
Pet.  C.  C.  322,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  68. 

41.  Van  Hook  v.  Wood,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16,854. 

42.  Exception  as  to  defense   under  U.   S. 
Rev.  St.    (1878)    §  4920;   McClurg  v.  Kings- 
land,  1  How.   (U.  S.)  202,  11  L.  ed.  102. 

Setting  aside  verdict  see  Aiken  v.  Bemis,  1 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  109,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  644,  3 
Woodb.  &  M.  348;  Blanchard's  Gun-Stock 
Turning  Factory  v.  Jacobs,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,520,  2  Blatchf.  69,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  158. 

Motion  to  withdraw  jury  for  surprise  see 
Foote  v.  Silsby,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,916,  1 
Blatchf.  445,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  268. 

Feigned  issue  awarded  see  Foote  v.  Silsby, 
9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,918,  1  Blatchf.  545,  Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  357. 

Objections  and  exceptions. —  Objection  to 
evidence  must  be  seasonably  made  (Pettibone 
V.  Pennsylvania  Steel  Co.,  134  Fed.  889; 
Brown  v.  Hall,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,008,  6 
Blatchf.  401,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  531;  Lock  v. 
Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,438), 
and  must  be  definite  ( Barker  v .  Stowe,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  994,  3  Ban.  &  A.  337,  15  Blatchf. 
49,  14  Off.  Gaz.  559).  Exceptions  must  also 
be  taken  seasonably.  Foote  v.  Silsby,  9  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,916,  1  Blatchf.  445,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep. 
268  [affirmed  in  14  How.  218,  14  L.  ed. 
394]. 

Records  and  exhibits. —  The  court  may  or- 
der the  production  of  records  and  exhibits 
(Diamond  Match  Co.  v.  Oshkosh  Match 
Works,  63  Fed.  984;  Johnson  Steel  Street- 

[XIII,  C,  15] 


Rail  Co.  v.  North  Branch  Steel  Co.,  48  Fed. 
191;  Wisner  v.  Dodds,  14  Fed.  655),  but  it 
will  not  order  the  filing  of  an  ink  copy  of 
exhibit  (Tubman  v.  Wason  Mfg.  Co.,  44  Fed. 
429). 

Experiments. —  The  court  will  not  order  de- 
fendant to  conduct  his  experiments  in  the 
presence  of  plaintiff's  witnesses.  Simonds 
Rollmg-Mach.  Co.  v.  Hathorn  Mfg.  Co.,  83 
Fed.  490. 

Witness  ordered  to  answer  certain  ques- 
tions see  Coop  v.  Dr.  Savage  Physical  Devel- 
opment Inst.,  48  Fed.  239,  47  Fed.  899 ;  Dela- 
mater  v.  Reinhardt,  43  Fed.  76;  Turrell  v. 
Spaeth,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,267,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
185,  8  Off.  Gaz.  986. 

Infringement  is  a  question  for  the  jury. 
Clark  v.  Adie,  2  App.  Cas.  315,  46  L.  J.  Ch. 
585,  36  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  923;  Macnamara  r. 
Hulse,  C.  &  M.  471,  41  E.  C.  L.  258;  De  la 
Rue  v.  Dickenson,  7  E.  &  B.  738,  3  Jur.  N.  S. 
841,  5  Wkly.  Rep.  754,  90  E.  C.  L.  738;  Seed 
v.  Higgins,  8  H.  L.  Cas.  550,  6  Jur.  N.  S. 
1264,  30  L.  J.  Q.  B.  314,  3  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
101,  11  Eng.  Reprint  544. 

43.  Coupe  v.  Royer,  155  U.  S.  565,  15  S.  Ct. 
199,  39  L.  ed.  263;  Graham  v.  Earl,  82  Fed. 
737;  Many  v.  Jagger,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,055, 
1  Blatchf.  372,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  222;   Parker 
v.  Stiles,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,749,  Fish.  Pat. 
Rep.    319,    5    McLean    44;    Hill   r.   Evans,    4 
De  G.  F.  &  J.  288,  8  Jur.  N.  S.  525,  31  L.  J. 
Ch.  457,  6  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  90,  65  Eng.  Ch. 
223,  45  Eng.  Reprint  1195. 

44.  Coupe  v.  Royer,  155  U.  S.  565,  15  S.  Ct. 
199,  39  L.  ed.  263 ;  Marsh  v.  Quick-Meal  Stove 
Co.,  51    Fed.   203;   National   Car-Brake   Shoe 
Co.   v.   Terre   Haute   Car,   etc.,   Co.,    19    Fed. 
514;  Clark  Patent  Steam,  etc.,  Regulator  Co. 
v.  Copeland,  5  Fed.   Cas.  No.  2,866,  2   Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  221;  Bovil  v.  Plimm,  11  Exch.  718; 
Seed  v.  Higgins,  8  H.  L.  Cas.  550,  6  Jur.  N.  S. 
1264,  30  L.  J.  Q.  B.  314,  3  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
101,  11  Eng.  Reprint  544. 

Until  the  evidence  is  in  the  court  may  re- 
fuse to  construe  the  patent.  Young  v.  Fermie, 
4  Giffard  577,  10  Jur.  N.  S.  926,  10  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  861,  4  New*  Rep.  218,  12  Wkly. 
Rep.  901,  66  Eng.  Reprint  836. 

45.  Battin   v.   Taggert,    17    How.    (U.    S.) 
74,  15  L.  ed.  37 ;  Foote  v.  Silsby,  9  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    4,916,    1    Blatchf.    445,   Fish.   Pat.    Rep. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.J     1045 


The  jury  must  determine  the  question  of  identity  of  the  alleged  infringing 
device,46  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  patent,47  and  the  amount  of  dam- 
ages.48 In  a  clear  case  the  court  may  direct  the  jury  to  bring  in  a  verdict  for 
defendant.49 

17.  HEARING  IN  SUITS  IN  EQUITY  —  a.  Questions  Determined.  "Where  defend- 
ant denies  the  infringement  and  avers  that  the  alleged  infringing  article  was 
made  under  a  later  patent  than  that  sued  upon,  the  court  may,  in  a  plain  case, 
determine  the  question  of  infringement  by  an  inspection  and  comparison  of  the 
two  patents.50  The  construction  placed  on  the  claims  of  a  patent  by  the  court  on 


268;  Goodyear  v.  Bishop,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,559,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  154 ;  Parker  v.  Stiles, 
18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,749,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  319, 
5  McLean  44;  Poppenhusen  v.  Falke,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,279,  4  Blatchf.  493,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  181. 

Expression  of  opinion. —  The  court  may  ex- 
press opinion  upon  a  fact  which  is  clear. 
Bollmans  v.  Parry,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,612. 

46.  Coupe  v.  Royer,  155  U.  S.  565,  15  S.  Ct. 
199,  39   L.   ed.   263;    Tucker  v.   Spalding,    13 
Wall.    (U.  S.)    453,  20  L.  ed.  515;   Tyler  v. 
Boston,  7   Wall.    (U.  S.)    327,   19  L.  ed.  93; 
Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cramer,  109  Fed.  652,  48 
C.  C.  A.  588;  Graham  v.  Earl,  82  Fed.  737; 
May  v.  Fond  du  Lac  County,  27   Fed.  691; 
Blanchard's    Gun-Stock    Turning    Factory    v. 
Warner,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,521,  1  Blatchf.  258, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  184;  Matthews  v.  Skates,  16 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   9,291,  1   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  602; 
Parker    v.   Stiles,    17    Fed.    Cas.    No.    10,749, 
Fish.  Pat,  Rep,  319,  5  McLean  44;   Pennock 
v.  Dialogue,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,941,  1  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  466,  4  Wash.  538  [affirmed  in  2  Pet. 
1,  7  L.  ed.  327] ;   Smith  v.  Higgins,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,058;  Tatham  v.  Le  Roy,  23  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,761. 

On  demurrer  to  evidence  court  may  instruct 
jury  to  find  for  defendant.  Royer  v.  Schultz 
Belting  Co.,  28  Fed.  850. 

In  a  plain  case  the  court  may  determine 
infringement  by  comparing  article  and 
patent.  Connors  v.  Ormsby,  148  Fed.  13,  78 
C.  C.  A.  181;  Hardwick  v.  Masland,  71  Fed. 
887;  Jennings  v.  Kibbe,  10  Fed.  669,  20 
Blatchf.  353. 

47.  Battin  v.  Taggert,  17  How.  (U.  S.)  74, 
15  L.  ed.  37:   Graham  v.  Earl,  82  Fed.  737; 
Carver   v.    Braintree    Mfg.    Co.,    5    Fed.    Cas. 
No.    2,485,   2    Robb   Pat.    Cas.    141,    2    Story 
432;    Sullivan  v.  Redfield,  23   Fed.   Cas.  No. 
13,597,   1  Paine  441,  1   Robb  Pat.   Cas.  477; 
Teese    v.    Phelps,    23    Fed.    Cas.    No.    13,818, 
McAllister  17. 

Anticipation  is  a  question  for  the  jury. 
Keyes  v.  Grant,  118  U.  S.  25,  6  S.  Ct.  974, 
30  L.  ed.  54;  Bischoff  v.  Wethered,  9  Wall. 
(U.  S.)  812,  19  L.  ed.  829;  Turrill  v.  Michi- 

rn,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   1   Wall.    (U.   S.)    491,    17 
ed.  668 ;  Hunt  Bros.  Fruit  Packing  Co.  v. 
Cassidy,  53  Fed.  257,  3  C.  C.  A.  525;  Water- 
man v.  Thomson,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,260,  2 
Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  461. 

In  England  anticipation  by  prior  patents  is 
for  the  court.  Bush  v.  Fox,  5  H.  L.  Cas.  7D7, 
2  Jur.  N.  S.  1029,  25  L.  J.  Exch.  251,  4  Wkly. 
Rep.  675,  10  Eng.  Reprint  1080;  Booth  v. 
Kennard,  2  H.  &  N.  84,  26  L.  J.  Exch.  305, 


5  Wkly.  Rep.  607 ;  Thomas  v.  Foxwell,  5  Jur. 
N.  S.  37  [affirmed  in  6  Jur.  N.  S.  271].  In- 
vention is  a  question  for  the  jury.  Willis  v. 
Miller,  121  Fed.  985,  58  C.  C.  A.  286;  San 
Francisco  Bridge  Co.  v.  Keating:,  68  Fed.  351, 
15  C.  C.  A.  476. 

Sufficiency  of  description  is  a  question  for 
the  jury.  Wood  v.  Underbill,  5  How.  (U.  S.) 
1,  12  L.  ed.  23 ;  Reutgen  v.  Kanowrs,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,710,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  1,  1  Wash. 
168. 

Abandonment  is  a  question  for  the  jury. 
Godfrey  v.  Eames,  1  Wall.  (U.  S.)  317,  17 
L.  ed.  684;  Kendall  v.  Winsor,  21  How. 
(U.  S.)  322,  16  L.  ed.  165. 

Fraud  is  a  question  for  the  jury.  Hogg  v. 
Emerson,  11  How.  (U.  S.)  587,  13  L.  ed. 
824;  Reutgen  v.  Kanowrs,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,710,  1  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  1,  1  Wash.  168. 

Reading  to  the  jury  the  decision  of  another 
court  as  to  validity  is  improper.  Arey  v. 
De  Loriea,  55  Fed.  323,  5  C.  C.  A.  116. 

Where  anticipated  in  patents  the  court  may 
so  instruct  the  jury.  Market  St.  Cable  R. 
Co.  v.  Rowley,  155  U.  S.  621,  15  S.  Ct.  224, 
39  L.  ed.  284. 

If  a  patent  is  void  on  its  face,  the  court 
may  so  instruct.  Roberts  v.  Bennett,  135 
Fed.  193,  69  C.  C.  A.  533;  Langdon  v.  De 
Groot,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,059,  1  Paine  203, 
I  Robb  Pat.  Cas.  433. 

Sufficiency  of  description  is  a  question  for 
the  jury.  Bickford  v.  Skewes,  1  Q.  B.  938, 
1  G.  &  D.  736,  6  Jur.  167,  41  E.  C.  L.  848; 
Betts  v.  Menzies,  10  H.  L.  Cas.  117,  9  Jur. 
N.  S.  29,  31  L.  J.  Q.  B.  233,  7  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  110,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  1,  11  Eng.  Reprint 
970. 

48.  National  Car-Brake  Shoe  Co.  v.  Terre 
Haute  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  19  Fed.  514;   Alden  v. 
Dewey,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  153,  2  Robb  Pat.  Cas. 
17,  1  Story  336;  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  217,  2 'Robb  Pat.  Cas.  530,  2  Woodb.  &  M. 
121 ;    Goodyear  v.  Bishop,    10   Fed.   Cas.  No. 

5,559,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  154;  Grant  v.  , 

10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,701 ;  Johnson  v.  Root,  13 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,409,  2  Cliff.  108,  2  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  291;   Stephens  v.  Felt,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,368,  2  Blatchf.  37,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  144. 

49.  Keyes  v.  Grant,  118  U.  S.  25,  6  S.  Ct. 
974,  30  L.  ed.  54. 

50.  Hardwick  v.  Masland,  71  Fed.  887. 
Unless  the  character  of  the  invention  has 

so  little  complexity  that  expert  evidence  is 
not  necessary  to  aid  the  court  in  understand- 
ing whether  one  patent,  or  several  patents 
considered  together,  describe  the  devices  or 
combination  of  devices  which  are  the  subject- 

[XIII,  C,  17,  a] 


1046     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


granting  a  preliminary  injunction  should  be  followed  at  the  final  hearing,  where 
there  has  been  no  substantial  change  in  the  cause  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  ques- 
tion of  construction.51  The  court  will  not  determine  a  moot  question  at  the  final 
hearing,  as  where  no  infringement  is  found  the  court  will  not  pass  upon  the 
question  of  the  novelty  of  a  patented  invention.52  Where  the  patent  is  recent, 
the  specification  obscure,  and  the  proof  of  infringement  meager  and  unsatisfactory, 
the  court  will  not  grant  an  injunction,  even  upon  a  final  hearing,  but  will  retain 
the  bill  for  a  certain  period  and  require  complainant  to  bring  an  action  at  law,  in 
which  case  the  bill  will  stand  dismissed,  unless  the  action  at  law  is  brought 
within  the  time  limited.53 

b.  Submission  of  Issues  to  Jury.  The  circuit  court  may  impanel  a  jury  of 
not  less  than  five  and  not  more  than  twelve  persons  and  submit  to  them  such 
questions  of  fact  arising  in  the  cause  as  the  court  shall  deem  expedient.54 

e.  Reception  of  Evidence.  Documentary  evidence  set  forth  in  defendant's 
answer  will  not  be  received  after  the  cause  has  been  submitted  upon  plaintiff's 
evidence;55  but  it  has  been  held  that,  where  it  is  an  important  point  in  the 
defense  that  a  reissued  patent  is  broader  in  its  scope  than  the  original,  the  case 
will  be  reopened  to  enable  defendant  to  introduce  testimony  tending  to  show  that 
fact,  it  being  alleged  that  such  testimony  is  newly  discovered.56  The  court  will 
not,  on  complainant's  motion,  compel  defendant  to  file  an  exhibit  in  a  form 
different  from  that  already  filed  by  him.57  Complainant  is  entitled  as  a  matter 
of  right  to  introduce  evidence  in  rebuttal,58  but  not  after  the  argument  has  corn- 


matter  of  the  subsequent  patent,  the  court 
will  examine  a  large  number  of  patents  prior 
in  date  to  that  of  complainant,  which  patents 
have  been  offered  in  evidence  to  sustain  the 
defense  of  want  of  novelty.  Waterman  v. 
Shipman,  55  Fed.  982,  5  C.  C.  A.  371. 

In  a  suit  upon  design  patents,  the  absence 
of  evidence  of  identity  does  not  make  it  im- 
proper for  the  court  to  compare  such  patent 
and  the  alleged  infringing  articles  offered 
in  evidence,  the  designs  being  of  a  simple 
character.  Jennings  v.  Kibbe,  10  Fed.  669, 
29  Blatchf.  353. 

51.  Sessions  v.  Gould,  60  Fed.  753  [affirmed 
in  63  Fed.  1001,  11  C.  C.  A.  546,  550]. 

52.  Saxe   v.   Hammond,   21    Fed.   Cas.  No. 
12,411,  1  Ban.  &  A.  629,  Holmes  456,  7  Off. 
Ga/.  781. 

53.  Muscan    Hair    Mfg.    Co.    v.    American 
Hair   Mfg.    Co.,    17    Fed.    Cas.   No.    9,970,   4 
Blatchf.  174,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  320. 

54.  Act  Feb.  16,  1875,  18  U.  S.  St.  at  L.  316 
[U.   S.   Comp.   St.    (1901)    p.   526];    Watt  v. 
Starke,  101  U.  S.  247,  25  L.  ed.  826.   In  case  of 
doubt  the  court  may  in  its  discretion  award 
an  issue  to  be  tried  by  jury.    Gray  v.  Halkyard, 
28  Fed.  854;  Allen  v.  Sprague,   1   Fed.  Cas. 
No.  238,  1  Blatchf.  567,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  388; 
Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,944,  3 
McLean  250,   2  Robb  Pat.   Cas.   118;   Parker 
v.   Hatfield,    18   Fed.   Cas.   No.    10,736,   Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  94,  4  McLean  61;  Sides  v.  Pacific 
Mail  Steamship  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,842; 
Van   Hook   v.   Pendleton,    28    Fed.    Cas.   No. 
16,851,   1   Blatchf.   187,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.   120. 

That  an  issue  to  be  tried  by  jury  not 
granted  at  the  mere  request  of  a  party  see 
Brooks  v.  Norcross,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,957, 
2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  661;  Goodyear  v.  Day,  10 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,566. 

Issue  for  jury  refused  see  Buchanan  v. 
Howland,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,074,  5  Blatchf. 

[XIII,  C,  17,  a] 


151,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  341;  Ely  v.  Monson, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,431,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  64. 

Court  may  order  trial  at  law  see  Booth  y. 
Garelly,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,646,  1  Blatchf.  247, 
Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  154;  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,944,  3  McLean  250,  2  Robb 
Pat.  Cas.  118;  Bryan  v.  Stevens,  4  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  2,066a. 

English  practice. —  Court  may  in  its  discre- 
tion direct  issue  of  fact  to  be  tried  by  jury. 
Bovill  v.  Hitchcock,  L.  R.  3  Ch.  417,  37 
L.  J.  Ch.  223,  16  Wkly.  Rep.  321;  Davenport 
v.  Goldberg,  2  Hem.  &  M.  282,  5  New  Rep. 
484,  71  Eng.  Reprint  472.  In  the  absence 
of  special  circumstances  the  issues  will  be 
tried  before  the  court  and  not  before  a 
jury.  Patent  Mar.  Invention  Co.  v.  Chad- 
burn,  L.  R.  16  Eq.  447,  26  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
614,  21  Wkly.  Rep.  745. 

55.  Peterson  v.  Simpkins,  25  Fed.  486. 

56.  Johnson    v.    Beard,    13    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
7,371,  2  Ban.  &  A.  50,  8  Off.  Gaz.  435. 

57.  Tubman  v.   Wason   Mfg.   Co.,   44   Fed. 
429,  where  the  complainant  moved  that  the 
court  order  defendant  to  file  an  ink  drawing 
of  an  exhibit  which  was  already  on  file  in 
pencil,  and  the  court  held  that  such  an  order 
would    be    improper,    counsel    for    defendant 
having  a  right,  at  defendant's  risk,  to  offer 
an  exhibit  in  one  form  or  another. 

58.  Cahoon  v.  Ring,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,292, 
1  Cliff.  592,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  397,  holding, 
however,  that  the  fresh  evidence  which  may 
be  introduced  is  limited  strictly  to  rebutting 
evidence,  and  hence  evidence  of  any  experi- 
ments upon  the  machine  in  question  cannot 
be   introduced  by   plaintiff  in   his   rebutting 
testimony. 

On  the  ground  of  surprise  leave  may  be 
granted  to  complainant  to  introduce  evi- 
dence in  rebuttal.  Pouopard  v.  Fardell,  18 


PATENTS  [30Cye.]     1047 

menced.59  Under  a  general  denial  of  the  patentee's  priority  of  invention,  evi- 
dence of  prior  knowledge  and  use,  taken  without  objection,  is  competent  at  the 
final  hearing,  not  only  as  demonstrative  of  the  state  of  the  art,  so  as  to  limit  the 
construction  of  the  patent,60  but  also  on  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  patent.61 
So  too  where  an  objection  was  not  distinctly  made  when  the  evidence  was  taken 
such  evidence  is  deemed  waived  and  is  competent  at  the  final  hearing.62 

d.  Dismissal  —  (i)  AT  WHAT  STAGE  OF  CAUSE  ALLOWABLE.  The  court 
may,  in  its  discretion,  permit  defendant  at  the  close  of  complainant's  proofs  to 
present  by  a  motion  to  dismiss  a  jurisdictional  question,63  or  a  question  of  the  legal 
sufficiency  of  the  proof  of  title  to  the  patent,64  without  requiring  defendant  to 
abide  by  the  case  as  then  made  in  the  event  that  his  motion  shall  be  overruled. 

(n)  GROUNDS.  The  bill  will  be  dismissed,65  without  regard  to  the  answer,66 
where  it  appears  that  letters  patent  are  void  on  their  face  because  the  process  or 
device  described  therein  is  not  patentable.  That  defendant  has,  by  his  action  in 
selling  his  alleged  patent,  necessarily  abandoned  his  intention  to  infringe  is  no 
sufficient  ground,  after  the  testimony  has  been  taken,  for  dismissing  the  bill  and 
remanding  plaintiff  to  his  remedy  at  law.67  If  a  suit  commenced  to  restrain 
from  infringing  letters  patent  and  to  recover  profits  and  damages  be  begun  so  late 
that  under  the  rules  of  the  court  no  injunction  can  be  obtained  before  the  expi- 
ration of  the  patent,  the  bill  should  be  dismissed  for  want  of  jurisdiction.68 

(in)  DISMISSAL  WITHOUT  PREJUDICE.  Where  the  alleged  infringement  has 
been  disproved,  an  application  for  dismissal  without  prejudice,  as  to  one  of  the 
defendants,  will  be  denied.69 

(iv)  OPERATION  AND  EFFECT.  Dismissal  of  the  bill  for  failure  to  show  an 
infringement  does  not  estop  plaintiff  or  his  assigns  from  again  suing  the  same 
defendant  for  infringing  the  same  patent.70 

18.  INTERLOCUTORY  DECREE  AND  ACCOUNTING  —  a.  Interlocutory  Decree.  Where 
the  finding  is  in  favor  of  the  validity  and  infringement  of  the  patent,  an  inter- 
locutory decree  for  the  complainant  is  entered  and  the  cause  is  referred  to  a 
master  to  ascertain  the  amount  to  be  recovered.71 

Wkly.  Rep.  59.     See  also  Penn  v.  Jack,  L.  R.       Storage,  etc.,  Co.,  153  Fed.  181,  82  C.  C.  A. 

2  Eq.  314,  14  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  495,  14  Wkly.       355   [affirming  147  Fed.  525]. 

Rep.  760.  66.  Slawson  v.  Grand  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107 

59.  Stainthorp  v.  Humiston,  22  Fed.  Cas.  U.  S.  649,  2  S.  Ct.  663,  27  L.  ed.  576;  Brown 
No.    13,281,   4   Fish.   Pat.   Cas.    107,   holding,  v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200;  Conder- 
however,  that  where  defendant  relies  on  de-  man  v.  Clements,  147  Fed.  915,  78  C.  C.  A. 
fenses  other  than  the  alienage  of  complainant,  51;  Quirolo  v.  Ardito,  1  Fed.  610,  17  Blatchf. 
the   latter  may   introduce   evidence   to   rebut  400. 

proof  that  he  was  not  an  alien,  upon  pay-  67.  Winchester    Repeating    Arms    Co.    v. 

ment  of  all  costs  incurred  by  defendant  in  American  Buckle,  etc.,  Co.,  54  Fed.  703. 

proving  the  alienage  of  complainant.  68.  Clark    v.   Wooster,    119    U.    S.    322,    7 

60.  Zane  v.  Soffe,  110  U.  S.  200,  3  S.  Ct.  S.  Ct.  217,  30  L.  ed.  392,  holding,  however, 
562,  28  L.  ed.   119.  that  where  the  suit  is  begun  in  such  time 

61.  Zane  v.  Soffe,  110  U.  S.  200,  3  S.  Ct.  that   an    injunction    can   be   obtained   before 
562,    28    L.    ed.    119;    Webster   Loom    Co.    v.  the  expiration  of  the  patent,  although  only 
Higgins,   105  U.  S.  580,  26  L.  ed.  1177.  three  days  remain  for  it  to  run,  it  is  within 

62.  Barker  v.  Stowe,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  994,  the    discretion   of    the    court   to   take    juris- 

3  Ban.  &  A.  337,  15  Blatchf.  49,  14  Off.  Gaz.  diction;  and  if  it  does,  it  may,  without  en- 
559.  joining  defendant,  proceed  to  grant  the  other 

63.  Streat    v.    American    Rubber    Co.,    115       incidental  relief  asked  for. 

Fed.  634.  69.  Archer  v.  Arnd,  31  Fed.  475   [affirmed 

64.  De    Laval    Separator    Co.    v.    Vermont  in   140  U.  S.  668,  11   S.  Ct.  1015,  35  L.  ed. 
Farm-Mach.  Co.,   109  Fed.  813.  599]. 

65.  Slawson  v.  Grand  St.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  107  70.  Steam-Gauge,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Meyrose,  27 
U.  S.  649,  2  S.  Ct.  663,  27  L.  ed.  576;  Brown  Fed.  213. 

v.  Piper,  91  U.  S.  37,  23  L.  ed.  200;  Quirolo  71.  Timolat  v.  Philadelphia  Pneumatic 
v.  Ardito,  1  Fed.  610,  17  Blatchf.  400;  Passaic  Tool  Co.,  130  Fed.  903;  Campbell  Printing- 
Zinc  Co.  D.  Spear,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,789.  Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Manhattan  R.  Co.,  49  Fed. 
See  also  Terhune  v.  Phillips,  99  U.  S.  592,  930;  Whitney  v.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  48  Fed. 
25  L.  ed.  293;  Dunbar  v.  Meyers,  94  U.  S.  444;  Andrews  v.  Creegan,  7  Fed.  477,  19 
187,  24  L.  ed.  34;  Wills  v.  Scranton  Cold  Blatchf.  113;  Allen  v.  Blunt,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

[XIII,  C,  18,  a] 


1048     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


b.  Proceedings  in  Accounting1.     The  authority  of  the  master  and  the  pro- 
ceedings before  him  are  controlled  by  the  ordinary  rules  of  equity  practice.72     On 


215,  1  Blatchf.  480,  Fish.  Pat.  Rep.  303,  8 
N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  105;  Bullock  Printing-Press 
Co.  v.  Jones,  4  Fed.  Gas.  No.  2,132,  3  Ban. 
&  A.  195,  13  Off.  Gaz.  124;  Carew  v.  Boston 
Elastic  Fabric  Co.,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,397, 
3  Cliff.  356,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  90,  1  Off.  Gaz. 
91. 

For  form  of  interlocutory  decree  see  Provi- 
dence Rubber  Co.  v.  Goodyear,  9  Wall.  (U.  S.) 
788,  19  L.  ed.  566. 

Decree  held  too  broad  see  Littlefield  v. 
Perry,  21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  205,  22  L.  ed.  577; 
Creamer  v.  Bowers,  30  Fed.  185. 

Time  after  complainant  has  sold  his  patent 
cannot  be  included  in  accounting.  Goss  Print- 
ing Press  Co.  v.  Scott,  134  Fed.  880.  De- 
fendant is  the  only  party  accounting  within 
the  meaning  of  equity  rule  79.  Goss  Print- 
ing Press  Co.  v.  Scott,  148  Fed.  393. 

Construction  of  particular  decree  see  New 
York  Grape  Sugar  Co.  v.  American  Grape 
Sugar  Co.,  42  Fed.  455. 

Where  the  decree  is  reversed  the  testimony 
may  be  used  in  a  subsequent  accounting. 
Campbell  v.  New  York,  35  Fed.  504,  1  L.  R.  A. 
48. 

Further  report. —  The  case  may  be  referred 
back  to  master  for  further  report.  Ruggles 
v.  Eddy,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,116,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  627,  12  Off.  Gaz.  716;  Whitney  v. 
Mowry,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,593,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  141.  On  exceptions  to  the  master's  re- 
port, a  former  decision  in  the  case  as  to 
the  rule  of  damages  must  be  followed. 
Webster  Loom  Co.  v.  Higgins,  39  Fed.  462. 

Compliance  with  interlocutory  order  to 
keep  an  account  see  Wilder  v.  Gayler,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,648,  1  Blatchf.  511,  Fish. 
Pat.  Rep.  317. 

Where  damages  are  trivial,  the  case  will 
not  be  referred  to  a  master.  Bradford  v. 
Belknap  Motor  Co.,  105  Fed.  63. 

Where  no  infringement  is  shown,  the  suit 
will  be  dismissed.  American  Wood-Paper  Co. 
v.  Heft,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  322,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
316;  Saxe  v.  Hammond,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
12,411,  1  Ban.  &  A.  629,  Holmes  456,  7  Off. 
Gaz.  781. 

A  request  for  dismissal  without  prejudice 
will  be  refused  where  infringement  is  dis- 
proved. Archer  v.  Arnd,  31  Fed.  475  [af- 
firmed in  140  U.  S.  668,  11  S.  Ct.  1015,  35 
L.  ed.  599].  Moot  questions  will  not  be 
decided.  Sprague  Electric  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Steel  Motor  Co.,  105  Fed.  959. 

After  interlocutory  decree  court  will  not 
advise  parties  whether  different  article  in- 
fringes. Thomas,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Electric  Porce- 
lain Co.,  114  Fed.  407. 

English  practice. —  An  account  will  be  re- 
fused where  it  is  clear  that  there  were  no 
profits.  Bergmann  v.  Macmillan,  17  Ch.  D. 
423,  44  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  794,  29  Wkly.  Rep. 
890.  An  account  where  complicated  may  be 
by  inquiry  in  chambers.  Betas  r.  De  Vitre,  11 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  533,  5  New  Rep.  165.  De- 
fendant may  be  ordered  to  permit  inspection 

[XIII,1  C,  18,  b] 


of  factorv  and  machines.  Garrard  v.  Edge, 
58  L.  J.  Ch.  397,  60  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  557,  37 
Wkly.  Rep.  501;  Germ  Milling  Co.  v.  Robin- 
son, 55  L.  J.  Ch.  287,  53  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
696,  34  Wkly.  Rep.  194;  Jones  v.  Lee,  25 
L.  J.  Exch.  241;  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wilson, 
12  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  140,  5  New  Rep.  505,  13 
Wkly.  Rep.  560.  Form  of  order  for  inspec- 
tion. Davenport  v.  Jepson,  1  New  Rep. 
307. 

72.  Mode  of  procedure. —  The  master  ap- 
points a  day  for  proceeding  with  the  refer- 
ence, and  gives  notice,  by  mail  or  otherwise, 
to  the  parties  or  their  solicitors.  The  so- 
licitor should  be  notified,  whether  the  party 
is  or  not;  although,  probably,  under  rule 
75,  notice  to  the  party  is  a  good  notice.  If 
defendant  does  not  appear,  the  master  pro- 
ceeds ex  parte  and  makes  out  the  profits 
and  damages,  if  he  can,  from  the  evidence 
produced  by  plaintiff.  If  it  appears  that  an 
account  of 'profits  is  necessary  to  a  just  de- 
cision of  the  cause,  and  is  desired  by  plain- 
tiff, he  makes  an  order  that  defendant  fur- 
nish an  account  by  a  certain  day,  and  ad- 
journs the  hearing  to  that  day.  Defendant 
should  be  served  personally  with  a  notice  of 
this  adjournment,  and  of  the  order  to  pro- 
duce his  account,  if  it  is  intended  to  move 
for  an  attachment  in  case  he  fails  to  appear. 
The  service  may  be  made  by  any  disinter- 
ested person,  and  need  not  be  by  the  marshal. 
If  defendant  then  fails  to  appear  and  ac- 
count, he  will  be  in  contempt.  Kerosene 
Lamp-Heater  Co.  v.  Fisher,  1  Fed.  91. 

Damages  and  profits. —  The  master  deter- 
mines damages  and  profits.  Reedy  v.  West- 
ern Electric  Co.,  83  Fed.  709,  28  C.  C.  A. 
27  [affirming  66  Fed.  163] ;  Rumford  Chemi- 
cal Works  v.  Hecker,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,134, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  386,  11  Off.  Gaz.  330;  Turrill 
v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
14,272,  5  Biss.  344  [reversed  in  part  in  94 
U.  S.  695,  24  L.  ed.  238]. 

The  master  should  take  an  account  to  the 
time  of  his  report  and  if  defendant  has 
changed  his  machine  should  determine  if 
the  new  machine  is  substantially  like  the  old 
one.  Hoe  v.  Scott,  87  Fed.  220;  Knox  v. 
Great  Western  Quicksilver  Min.  Co.,  14  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  7,907,  4  Ban.  &  A.  25,  7  Reporter 
325,  6  Sawy.  430,  14  Off.  Gaz.  897;  Tatham 
v.  Lowber,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,765,  4  Blatclif. 
86  [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  22  How. 
132,  16  L.  ed.  366]. 

The  liability  of  each  defendant  should  be 
determined.  Herring  v.  Gage,  12  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  6,422,  3  Ban.  &  A.  396,  15  Blatchf.  124; 
Tatham  v.  Lowber,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,765, 
4  Blatchf.  86. 

Determination  of  cost  of  manufacture  see 
Mast  v.  Superior  Drill  Co.,  154  Fed.  45,  83 
C.  C.  A.  157. 

The  questions  of  validity  and  infringement 
are  not  open  before  the  master.  Skinner  v. 
Vulcan  Iron-Works,  39  Fed.  870;  Cellu- 
loid Mfg.  Co.  1?.  Comstock,  etc.,  Co.,  27  Fed. 


PATENTS 


[30  Gye.]     1049 


an  account  before  a  master  for  damages  for  infringement  of  a  patent,  evidence 
of  license  contracts  made  between  complainant  and  other  responsible  parties,  by 
which  they  were  to  pay  a  royalty  for  the  use  of  the  patented  device,  is  admis- 
sible.73 He  is  bound  by  the  terms  of  the  interlocutory  decree.74 

19.  COSTS73 — a.  In  Actions  at  Law.     The  ordinary  rule  as  to  costs  prevails,76 
except  as  affected  by  delay  in  tiling  a  disclaimer.77 


358;  Turrill  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  14,272,  5  Biss.  344;  Whitney  v. 
Mowry,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,594,  4  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  207.  Compare  Walker  Patent  Pivoted 
Bin  Co.  v.  Miller,  146  Fed.  249. 

Proof  of  damages. —  Master  not  called  upon 
to  suggest  how  profits  and  damages  may  be 
proved.  Garretson  v.  Clark,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
5,250,  4  Ban.  &  A.  536,  16  Off.  Gaz.  806. 

Report  of  oral  evidence. —  Master  not  re- 
quired to  report  oral  evidence  unless  re- 
quested at  the  time.  Hammacher  v.  Wilson, 
32  Fed.  796. 

Where  evidence  is  introduced  both  as  to 
damages  and  profits,  it  is  proper  for  the 
master  to  report  his  findings  and  conclusions 
upon  each  line  of  evidence  separately.  Mast 
v.  Superior  Drill  Co.,  154  Fed.  45,  83  C.  C.  A. 
157. 

Where  the  master  by  his  rulings  limits  the 
scope  of  the  inquiry,  the  matter  may  properly 
be  presented  to  the  court  for  decision  by  a 
motion  for  instructions  to  the  master.  Wal- 
ker Patent  Pivoted  Bin  Co.  v.  Miller,  146 
Fed.  249. 

Burden  of  proof.— The  burden  is  on  the 
complainant  to  show  affirmatively  the  amount 
of  profits.  Mosher  v.  Joyce,  51  Fed.  441,  2 
C.  C.  A.  322  [affirming  45  Fed.  205];  Ham- 
macher v.  Wilson,  32  Fed.  796;  Black  v. 
Munson,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,463,  2  Ban.  &  A. 
623,  14  Blatchf.  265  [affirmed  in  111  U.  S. 
122,  4  S.  Ct.  326,  28  L.  ed.  372] ;  Webstor 
v.  New  Brunswick  Carpet  Co.,  29  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,338,  2  Ban.  &  A.  67,  9  Off.  Gaz.  203. 
Circumstances  may  place  the  burden  on  de- 
fendant of  showing  what  part  of  profits  not 
due  to  patented  part.  Cimiotti  Unhair- 
ing  Co.  17.  Bowsky,  113  Fed.  698;  American 
Nicholson  Pavement  Co.  v.  Elizabeth,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  309,  1  Ban.  &  A.  439,  6  Off.  Gaz. 
764  [modified  in  97  U.  S.  126,  24  L.  ed.  1000]. 

Admissibility  of  evidence. —  Evidence  that 
other  devices  were  capable  of  use  is  incom- 
petent. American  Nicholson  Pavement  Co.  v. 
Elizabeth,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  309,  1  Ban.  &  A. 
439,  6  Off.  Gaz.  764  [modified  in  97  U.  S. 
126,  24  L.  ed.  1000].  Evidence  as  to  cost  of 
manufacture  is  admissible.  Mast  v.  Superior 
Drill  Co.,  154  Fed.  45,  83  C.  C.  A.  157. 

73.  Mast  v.  Superior  Drill  Co.,  154  Fed.  45, 
83  C.  C.  A.  157.  Evidence  as  to  the  compara- 
tive profits  of  the  patented  and  similar  de- 
vices may  be  competent.  Webster  Loom  Co. 
v.  Higgins,  39  Fed.  462;  Black  v.  Thome,  3 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,466,  1  Ban.  &  A.  155,  12 
Blatchf.  20,  7  Off.  Gaz.  176;  Garretson  v. 
Clark,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,250,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
536,  16  Off.  Gaz.  806. 

Weight  of  evidence.—  Rulings  of  master  as 
to  the  weight  of  evidence  not  disturbed 
where  reasonable.  Welling  v.  La  Bau,  35 


Fed.  301;  Creamer  v.  Bowers,  35  Fed.  206; 
Welling  v.  La  Bau,  34  Fed.  40;  Hammacher 
v.  Wilson,  32  Fed.  796;  Wooster  v.  Thorn, 
ton,  26  Fed.  274  [affirmed  in  136  U.  S.  651, 
10  S.  Ct.  1074,  34  L.  ed.  550];  Piper  v. 
Brown,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,181,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  240,  Holmes  196,  3  Off.  Gaz.  97. 

Setting  up  alleged  new  infringements  by 
supplemental  bill  see  Murray  v.  Orr,  etc., 
Hardware  Co.,  153  Fed.  369,  82  C.  C.  A.  445. 

Setting  aside. —  The  master's  report  may 
be  set  aside  for  manifest  error  of  law  or  fact. 
Greenleaf  v.  Yale  Lock  Mfg.  Co.,  10  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  5,783,  4  Ban.  &  A.  583,  17  Blatchf.  253, 
17  Off.  Gaz.  625;  Steam  Stonecutter  Co.  v. 
Windsor  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,335, 

4  Ban.  &  A.  445,  17  Blatchf.  24. 
Recommitting  case. —  The  case  may  be  re- 
committed   for     specific    findings.      Webster 
Loom  Co.  17.  Higgins,  43   Fed.  673.     It  will 
not    be    recommitted    for    immaterial    error. 
Zane  v.  Peck,  13  Fed.  475. 

Exceptions. —  Exceptions  overruled  where 
error  is  not  pointed  out.  Turrill  v.  Illinois 
Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,272,  5  Biss. 
344  [reversed  in  part  in  94  U.  S.  695,  24 
L.  ed.  238],  Exceptions  overruled  and  order 
for  recount  refused.  Timken  v.  Olin,  41  Fed. 
169;  Morss  v.  Union  Form  Co.,  39  Fed.  468; 
Garretson  v.  Clark,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,248, 
3  Ban.  &  A.  352,  15  Blatchf.  70,  14  Off.  Gaz. 
485  [affirmed  in  111  U.  S.  120,  4  S.  Ct.  291, 
28  L.  ed.  371]. 

English  practice. —  In  accounting  before 
master  the  court  may  make  an  order  for  dis- 
covery and  the  production  of  defendant's 
books.  Saccharin  Corp.  v.  Chemicals,  etc., 
Co.,  [1900]  2  Ch.  556,  69  L.  J.  Ch.  820,  83 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  206,  49  Wkly.  Rep.  1 ;  Saxby 
v.  Easterbrook,  L.  R.  7  Exch.  207,  41  L.  J. 
Exch.  113,  26  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  439,  20  Wkly. 
Rep.  751.  Question  of  validity  is  not  in 
issue.  Clark  v.  Adie,  3  Ch.  D.  134,  45  L.  J. 
Ch.  228,  35  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  349,  24  Wkly. 
Rep.  1107  [affirmed  in  2  App.  Cas.  423,  46 
L.  J.  Ch.  598,  37  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  1,  25  Wkly. 
Rep.  45]. 

74.  Hoe  17.  Scott,  87  Fed.  220;   Skinner  v. 
Vulcan  Iron  Works,  39  Fed.  870;   Turrill  v. 
Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  24  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,272, 

5  Biss.  344;  Whitney  v.  Mowry,  29  Fed.  Cas. 
No.   17,594,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  207;  Williams 
17.    Leonard,    29    Fed.    Cas.    No.     17,726,    9 
Blatchf.  476,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  381. 

75.  See,   generally,    COSTS. 

76.  Corser  v.   Brattleboro   Overall  Co.,   93 
Fed.  809;  Kneass  t7.  Schuylkill  Bank,  14  Fed. 
Cas.  No.   7,876,   Fish.  Pat.   Rep.   1,  4  Wash. 
106;    Merchant  v.   Lewis,    17    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
9,437,  1  Bond  172.    See  infra,  XIII,  C,  19,  b. 

77.  Sessions  v.  Romadka,  145  U.  S.  29,  12 
S.  Ct.  799,  36  L.  ed.  609;  Dunbar  17.  Meyers, 

[XIII,  C,  19,  a] 


1050     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


b.  In  Suits  in  Equity.  In  infringement  suits  costs  are  awarded  to  the  success- 
ful party  unless  there  are  special  circumstances  which  render  this  unjust.78  Where 
some  of  the  claims  sued  on  are  void,  costs  for  the  complainant  are  usually  refused, 
although  the  decree  is  in  his  favor  upon  other  claims.79  Costs  may  be  divided  in 


94  U.  S.  187,  24  L.  ed.  34;  Smith  v.  Nichols, 
21  Wall.  (U.  S.)  112,  22  L.  ed.  566;  Peek 
v.  Frame,  19  Fed.  Gas.  No.  10,904,  5  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  211. 

Copies  of  patents  are  not  part  of  costs. 
Ryan  v.  Gould,  32  Fed.  754;  Wooster  t>. 
Handy,  23  Fed.  49,  23  Blatchf.  112;  Wood- 
ruff v.  Barney,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,986,  1 
Bond  528,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  244. 

78.  See,  generally,  COSTS,  11  Cyc.  1. 

Costs  to  successful  party  refused  under 
special  circumstances. —  Green  v.  Lynn,  81 
Fed.  387;  Lowell  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Whittall,  71 
Fed.  515;  Consolidated  Brake-Shoe  Co.  v. 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  69  Fed.  412;  Marks  Ad- 
justable Folding  Chair  Co.  v.  Wilson,  43  Fed. 
302;  Hayes  v.  Bickelhoupt,  23  Fed.  183; 
Tyler  v.  Galloway,  13  Fed.  477,  21  Blatchf. 
66 ;  American  Wood-Paper  Co.  v.  Heft,  1  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  322,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  316;  Hussey 
v.  Bradley,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,946,  5  Blatchf. 
134,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  362 ;  Prime  v.  Brandon 
Mfg.  Co.,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,421,  4  Ban. 
&  A.  379,  16  Blatchf.  453;  Smith  v.  Wood- 
ruff, 22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,128a,  6  Fish.  Pat. 
Cas.  476. 

Recovery  of  nominal  damages. —  Where 
nominal  damages  only  are  found,  cost  of  ref- 
erence to  master  taxed  against  complainant. 
Kansas  City  Hay  Press  Co.  v.  Devol,  127 
Fed.  363 ;  Hill  v.  Smith,  32  Fed.  753 ;  Everest 
v.  Buffalo  Lubricating  Oil  Co.,  31  Fed.  742; 
Kirby  v.  Armstrong,  5  Fed.  801,  10  Biss.  135. 
•Compare  Calkins  v.  Bertrand,  8  Fed.  755,  10 
Biss.  445,  holding  that  where  nominal  dam- 
ages only  are  allowed  the  taxation  of  costs 
depends  on  circumstances. 

Unnecessary  costs. —  No  costs  unnecessarily 
accumulated  will  be  allowed.  Brunswick- 
Balke-Collender  Co.  v.  Klump,  131  Fed.  93; 
Ford  v.  Kurtz,  12  Fed.  789,  11  Biss.  324. 

Where  the  decree  drawn  by  the  successful 
party  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  judg- 
ment, no  costs  can  be  allowed  him  on  appeal. 
Hatch  Storage  Battery  Co.  v.  Electric  Storage 
Battery  Co.,  100  Fed.  975,  41  C.  C.  A.  133; 
Shute  v.  Morley  Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  64  Fed. 
368,  12  C.  C.  A.  356. 

Expense  of  accounting. —  Defendant  must 
bear  the  expense  of  accounting  in  the  first 
instance.  Urner  v.  Kayton,  17  Fed.  539,  21 
Blatchf.  428. 

Compensation  of  master. —  In  Massachu- 
setts plaintiff  must  pay  master's  compensa- 
tion in  the  first  instance  to  be  recovered  as 
costs.  Macdonald  v.  Shepard,  10  Fed.  919. 

Prior  to  entry  of  decree  taxing  costs,  each 
party  pays  his  own  costs.  U.  S.  Printing  Co. 
v.  American  Playing-Card  Co.,  81  Fed.  506. 

Where  an  execution  for  costs  is  returned 
unsatisfied,  a  receiver  will  not  be  appointed 
to  take  possession  of  the  patent.  Thayer  v. 
Hart,  24  Fed.  558,  23  Blatchf.  303. 

English  practice. —  No  costs  are  allowed  un- 

[XIII,  C,  19,  b] 


less  the  judge  certifies  that  particulars  are 
proved.  Wilcox  v.  Janes,  [1897]  2  Ch.  71, 
66  L.  J.  Ch.  525,  45  Wkly.  Rep.  474;  Long- 
bottom  v.  Shaw,  43  Ch.  D.  46,  58  L.  J.  Ch. 
734,  61  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  325,  37  Wkly.  Rep. 
792;  Honiball  v.  Bloomer,  3  C.  L.  R.  167, 
10  Exch.  538,  1  Jur.  N.  S.  188,  24  L.  J. 
Exch.  11,  3  Wkly.  Rep.  71;  Gillett  v.  Wilby, 
9  C.  &  P.  334,  38  E.  C.  L.  201 ;  Needham  v. 
Oxley,  8  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  604,  2  New  Rep. 
388,  11  Wkly.  Rep.  852.  A  party  is  not  en- 
titled to  costs  on  issues  decided  against  him. 
Phillips  v.  Ivel  Cycle  Co.,  62  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
392.  Division  of  costs  see  Losche  v.  Hague, 
7  Dowl.  P.  C.  495,  3  Jur.  409,  8  L.  J.  Exch. 
251,  5  M.  &  W.  387.  A  certificate  that  par- 
ticulars of  objection  were  proved  or  were 
reasonable  may  be  given  by  appellate  court. 
Cole  v.  Saqui,  40  Ch.  D.  132,  58  L.  J.  Ch. 
237,  59  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  877,  37  Wkly.  Rep. 
109;  Germ  Milling  Co.  v.  Robinson,  55  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  282.  A  certificate  is  necessary 
only  where  there  was  an  actual  trial  and  not 
where  suit  was  discontinued.  Curtis  v.  Platt, 
16  C.  B.  N.  S.  465,  10  Jur.  N.  S.  823,  33 
L.  J.  C.  P.  255,  10  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  383,  111 
E.  C.  L.  465;  Greaves  v.  Eastern  R.  Co.,  1 
E.  &  E.  961,  5  Jur.  N.  S.  733,  28  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
290,  7  Wkly.  Rep.  453,  102  E.  C.  L.  961.  Cer- 
tificate that  the  validity  of  the  patent  came 
in  question  see  Gillett  v.  Green,  9  Dowl.  P.  C. 
219,  10  L.  J.  Exch.  124,  7  M.  &  W.  347; 
Haslem  Co.  v.  Hall,  5  Rep.  Pat.  Cas.  1,  23; 
American  Steel,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Glover,  50  Wkly. 
Rep.  284.  No  certificate  that  validity  came 
in  question  will  be  given  for  defendant. 
Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Levinstein, 
29  Ch.  D.  366,  53  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  750.  Cer- 
tificate refused  see  Wilcox  v.  Janes,  [1897] 
2  Ch.  71,  66  L.  J.  Ch.  525,  45  Wkly.  Rep. 
474;  Longbottom  v.  Shaw,  43  Ch.  D.  46,  58 
L.  J.  Ch.  734,  61  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  325,  37 
Wkly.  Rep.  792;  United  Tel.  Co.  v.  Harrison, 
21  Ch.  D.  720,  51  L.  J.  Ch.  705,  46  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  620,  30  Wkly.  Rep.  724;  Bovill 
v.  Hadley,  17  C.  B.  N.  S.  435,  10  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  650,  112  E.  C.  L.  435;  Stocker  v. 
Rodgers,  1  C.  &  K.  99,  47  E.  C.  L.  99.  Cost 
on  amendment  see  Edison  Tel.  Co.  v.  India 
Rubber  Co.,  17  Ch.  D.  137,  29  Wkly.  Rep. 
496;  Penn  v.  Bebby,  L.  R.  1  Eq.  548.  Case 
may  be  continued  to  settle  costs.  Geary  v. 
Norton,  1  De  G.  &  Sm.  9,  63  Eng.  Reprint 
949. 

Canadian  practice. —  Treble  costs  may  be 
allowed  in  Canada.  Huntingdon  v.  Lutz,  10 
Can.  L.  J.  46;  Hunter  v.  Carrick,  28  Grant 
Ch.  (U.  C.)  489. 

79.  Metallic  Extraction  Co.  v.  Brown,  110 
Fed.  665,  49  C.  C.  A.  147;  Thomson-Houston 
Electric  Co.  v.  Elmira,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  71  Fed. 
886;  Stewart  v.  Mahoney,  5  Fed.  302;  Yale, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  North,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
18,123,  5  Blatchf.  455,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  279. 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1051 


the  discretion  of  the  court.80  The  ordinary  rules  as  to  what  constitute  taxable 
costs  apply.81  They  do  not  include  copies  of  patents,  record,  and  exhibit  models.82 

20.  APPEAL  AND  ERROR83 — a.  In  Actions  at  Law.  Any  final  judgment  at 
law  in  a  patent  suit  may  be  reviewed  by  the  circuit  court  of  appeal  by  writ  of 
error,84  but  the  judgment  of  the  court  of  appeals  in  patent  matters  is  final  and 
not  reviewable  by  the  supreme  court  except  by  certification  by  the  court  of 
appeals  or  by  writ  of  certiorari  from  the  supreme  court.85 

b.  In  Suits  in  Equity  —  (i)  FINAL  DEGREE.  An  appeal  may  be  taken  to  the 
circuit  court  of  appeals  from  any  final  decree  in  a  patent  suit  if  taken  within  six 
months  after  the  entry  of  the  decree.86 

(n)  INTERLOCUTORY  DECREE.     An  appeal  may  be  taken  to  the  court  of 


Compare  Pennsylvania  Diamond  Drill  Co.  v. 
Simpson,  29  Fed.  288,  where  one  patent  void, 
costs  divided. 

Disclaimer. —  No  costs  will  be  allowed  un- 
less proper  disclaimer  was  filed  before  suit. 
O'Reilly  v.  Morse,  15  How.  (U.  S.)  62,  14 
L.  ed.  601;  General  Electric  Co.  v.  Crouse- 
Hinds  Electric  Co.,  147  Fed.  718;  Fairbanks 
v.  Stickney,  123  Fed.  79,  59  C.  C.  A.  209; 
Worden  v.  Searls,  21  Fed.  406;  Munday  v. 
Lidgerwood  Mfg.  Co.,  20  Fed.  191;  Proctor  v. 
Brill,  16  Fed.  791;  Sharp  v.  Tift,  2  Fed.  697, 
18  Blatchf.  132;  Aiken  v.  Dolan,  1  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  110,  3  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  197;  Christman  v. 
Rumsey,  5  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,704,  4  Ban.  &  A. 
506,  17  Blatchf.  148,  17  Off.  Gaz.  903,  58 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  114;  Myers  v.  Frame,  17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,991,  8  Blatchf.  446,  4  Fish. 
Pat.  Cas.  493 ;  Taylor  v.  Archer,  23  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  13,778,  8  Blatchf.  315,  4  Fish.  Pat.  Cas. 
449.  The  rule  against  costs  without  dis- 
claimer applies  only  to  the  claims  in  issue  in 
the  suit.  National  Electric  Signaling  Co.  V. 
De  Forest  Wireless  Tel.  Co.,  140  Fed.  449; 
Gamewell  Fire-Alarm  Tel.  Co.  v.  Municipal 
Signal  Co.,  77  Fed.  490,  23  C.  C.  A.  250; 
American  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  Spencer,  8  Fed. 
509.  The  rule  applies  only  to  the  lower 
court  and  not  to  the  costs  on  appeal.  Kahn 
v.  Starrels,  136  Fed.  597,  69  C.  C.  A.  371. 

80.  Dobson    v.    Bigelow    Carpet    Co.,    114 
U.  S.  439,  5   S.  Ct.  945,  29  L.  ed.   177   Ire- 
versing  10  Fed.  3851 ;   Ide  v.  Trorlicht,  etc., 
Carpet  Co.,   115  Fed.   137,  53  C.  C.  A.  341; 
Brill  v.   Delaware   County,  etc.,  R.   Co.,   109 
Fed.    901;    Tesla   Electric    Co.   v.    Scott,    101 
Fed.   524;    Fisk  v.  West  Bradley,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  9  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,830a,  19  Off.  Gaz.  545; 
Garret-son  v.   Clark,   10  Fed.   Cas.  No.  5,250, 
4  Ban.  &  A.   536,   16  Off.  Gaz.  806,   10  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  5,248,  3  Ban.  &  A.  352,  15  Blatchf. 
70,  14  Off.  Gaz.  485   [affirmed  in  111   U.  S. 
120,  4  S.  Ct.  291,  28  L.  ed.  371];  Troy  Iron, 
etc.,    Factory    Co.    v.    Corning,    24   Fed.    Cas. 
No.    14,198,    10    Blatchf.    223,    6    Fish.    Pat. 
Cas.  85. 

81.  Parks  v.  Booth,  102  U.  S.  96,  26  L.  ed. 
54. 

The  costs  of  the  reference  to  the  master 
for  an  account  of  profits  and  damages  are 
assessed.  Kansas  City  Hay  Press  Co.  v. 
Devol,  127  Fed.  363;  Hill  v.  Smith,  32  Fed. 
753;  American  Diamond  Drill  Co.  v.  Sulli- 
van, 32  Fed.  552,  23  Blatchf.  144;  Everest  t\ 
Buffalo  Lubricating  Oil  Co.,  31  Fed.  742; 


Kirby   v.   Armstrong,    5    Fed.    801,    10    Biss. 
135. 

82.  Ordinary   models    are    not    taxable    as 
costs.     Cornelly  v.  Markwald,   24  Fed.    187, 
23  Blatchf.  248;  Wooster  v.  Handy,  23  Fed. 
49,    23    Blatchf.    112;    Parker    v.    Bigler,    18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,726,  1  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  285. 
Contra,  Hathaway  v.  Roach,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,213,  2  Woodb.  &  M.  63. 

Model  of  plaintiff's  patent  may  be  taxable 
but  not  others.  Wooster  v.  Handy,  23  Fed. 
49,  23  Blatchf.  112;  Hussey  v.  Bradley,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,946a,  5  Blatchf.  210;  Wood- 
ruff i?.  Barney,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,986,  1 
Bond  528,  2  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  244. 

Drawings  exhibit  is  not  taxable.  Wooster 
v.  Handy,  23  Fed.  49,  23  Blatchf.  112. 

Copies  of  patents  are  not  taxed.  Ryan  v. 
Gould,  32  Fed.  754;  Woodruff  v.  Barney, 
30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,986,  1  Bond  528,  2  Fish, 
Pat.  Cas.  244. 

Certified  copy  of  file  wrapper  of  plaintiff's 
patent  is  not  allowed.  Ryan  v.  Gould,  32 
Fed.  754. 

English  practice. —  Expense  of  model  and 
scientific  witnesses  may  be  allowed.  Batley 
v.  Kynock,  L.  R.  20  Eq.  632,  44  L.  J.  Ch. 
565,  33  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  45. 

83.  See,   generally,   APPEAL  AND  ERROR. 

84.  Act  March  3,  1891,  §  6,  26  U.  S.  St.  at 
L.  828   [U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  549]. 

Facts  will  not  be  reviewed.  American 
Sales  Book  Co.  v.  Bullivant,  117  Fed.  255, 
54  C.  C.  A.  287 ;  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Brill,  54 
Fed.  380,  4  C.  C.  A.  374. 

85.  Act  March  3,  1891,  §  6,  26  U.  S.  St.  at 
L.    828    [U.    S.    Comp.    St.    (1901)    p.    549]; 
Columbus  Watch  Co.  v.   Robbins,    148  U.   S. 
266,  13  S.  Ct.  594,  37  L.  ed.  445. 

86.  Act  March  3,  1891,  §§  6,  11,  26  U.  S. 
St.  at  L.  828,  829   [U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901) 
pp.  549,  552]. 

Final  and  interlocutory  decrees  distin- 
guished and  authorities  reviewed  see  Stand- 
ard Elevator  Co.  v.  Crane  Elevator  Co.,  76 
Fed.  767,  22  C.  C.  A.  549. 

Evidence  considered. —  Patents  set  up  in  the 
answer  in  a  suit  for  infringement  as  a  part 
of  the  prior  art,  printed  and  indexed  in  the 
record  on  appeal,  and  refe'rred  to  in  the 
briefs,  and  in  relation  to  which  witnesses 
were  examined,  all  without  objection,  will  not 
be  excluded  from  consideration  by  the  ap- 
pellate court  because  they  were  not  formally 
marked  as  exhibits  by  the  examiner.  Smyth 
[XIII,  C,  20,  b,  (n)] 


1052     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


appeals  from  an  interlocutory  order  or  decree  granting,  continuing,  or  refusing  to 
dissolve  an  injunction.87     Such  appeal  must  be  taken  within  thirty  days  and  is 


Mfg.  Co.  v.  Sheridan,  149  Fed.  208,  79 
C.  C.  A.  166. 

87.  Act  March  3,  1891,  §  7,  26  U.  S.  St.  at 
L.  828  [U.  S.  Comp.  St.  (1901)  p.  550]. 

A  decree  finding  some  of  the  claims  of  a 
patent  valid  and  others  invalid,  awarding  a 
perpetual  injunction  and  referring  the  cause 
to  a  master  to  determine  profits  is,  although 
termed  an  interlocutory  decree,  final  to  the 
extent  that  it  will  permit  cross  appeals. 
Chicago  Wooden  Ware  Co.  v.  Miller  Ladder 
Co.,  133  Fed.  541,  66  C.  C.  A.  517.  And  see 
Lockwood  v.  Wickes,  75  Fed.  118,  21  C.  C.  A. 
257;  Columbus  Watch  Co.  v.  Robbins,  52 
Fed.  337,  3  C.  C.  A.  103 ;  Reeves  v.  Keystone 
Bridge  Co.,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,661,  2  Ban. 
&  A.  256,  9  Off.  Gaz.  885,  11  Phila.  (Pa.) 
498.  Contra,  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co. 
v.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  112  Fed.  676,  50 
C.  C.  A.  421;  Marden  v.  Campbell  Printing- 
Press,  etc.,  Co.,  67  Fed.  809,  15  C.  C.  A.  26. 

Who  may  appeal. —  Licensee  who  joins  pat- 
entee with  him  as  complainant  may  appeal 
without  consent  of  patentee.  Excelsior 
Wooden  Pipe  Co.  v.  Seattle,  117  Fed.  140, 
55  C.  C.  A.  156. 

Appealable  decisions. —  Overruling  motion 
to  dismiss  as  to  one  complainant  is  a  final 
decision  and  appealable.  Brush  Electric  Co. 
v.  Electric  Imp.  Co.,  51  Fed.  557,  2  C.  C.  A. 
373.  Award  to  complainant  of  part  of  fine 
imposed  on  defendant  for  contempt  is  appeal- 
able. Christensen  Engineering  Co.  v.  West- 
inghouse  Air  Brake  Co.,  135  Fed.  774,  68 
C.  C.  A.  476.  Appeal  lies  from  an  interlocu- 
tory decree  granting  a  perpetual  injunction 
and  an  account  of  damages.  Richmond  v. 
Atwood,  52  Fed.  10,  2  C.  C.  A.  596,  17 
L.  R.  A.  615;  Dudley  E.  Jones  Co.  v.  Munger 
Improved  Cotton  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  50  Fed. 
785,  1  C.  C.  A.  668.  Refusal  of  a  rehearing 
is  not  appealable.  Boston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Pullman's  Palace  Car  Co.,  51  Fed.  305,  2 
C.  C.  A.  172.  Refusal  to  permit  disclaimer 
after  decision  is  not  appealable.  Roemer  v. 
Neumann,  132  U.  S.  103,  10  S.  Ct.  12,  33 
L.  ed.  277.  An  order  vacating  service  of 
process  is  not  a  final  decree.  L.  E.  Water- 
man Co.  v.  Parker  Pen  Co.,  107  Fed.  141,  46 
C.  C.  A.  203.  No  appeal  is  allowed  to  settle 
costs.  Gamewell  Fire-Alarm  Tel.  Co.  v.  Mu- 
nicipal Signal  Co.,  77  Fed.  490,  23  C.  C.  A. 
250.  Alternative  order  granting  injunction 
or  requiring  bond  will  not  be  reviewed  on 
appeal.  Union  Blue-Flame  Oil  Stove  Co.  v. 
Silver,  128  Fed.  925,  63  C.  C.  A.  110;  Steams- 
Roger  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Brown,  114  Fed.  939,  52 
C.  C.  A.  559. 

Dismissal. —  One  of  several  appellants  can- 
not dismiss  an  appeal.  Marsh  v.  Nichols, 
120  U.  S.  598,  7  S.  Ct.  704,  30  L.  ed.  796. 

New  evidence  cannot  be  introduced  after 
appeal  even  by  stipulation.  F.  C.  Austin  Mfg. 
Co.  v.  American  Wellworks,  121  Fed.  76,  57 
C.  C.  A.  330. 

Amendment. —  Where  a  decree  dismissing  a 
bill  is  affirmed  permission  to  amend  not  al- 

[XIII,  C,  20,  b,  (II)] 


lowed.  Martin,  etc.,  Cash-Carrier  Co.  i\  Mar- 
tin, 71  Fed.  519,  18  C.  C.  A.  234;  American 
Bell  Tel  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  68  Fed.  542,  15  C.  C.  A. 
569. 

Ruling  on  interlocutory  appeal  followed  on 
appeal  from  final  decree  see  Cimiotti  Unhair- 
ing  Co.  v.  Nearseal  Unhairing  Co.,  123  Fed. 
479,  59  C.  C.  A.  58. 

Questions  considered  on  appeal. —  The  court 
will  not  consider  points  not  made  below. 
Lane  v.  Levi,  21  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  168.  A 
pleading  cannot  be  objected  to  as  insuffi- 
cient for  the  first  time  on  appeal.  Smith, 
etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mellon,  58  Fed.  705,  7 
C.  C.  A.  439. 

Refusal  to  increase  damages  will  not  be  dis- 
turbed on  appeal.  Topliff  v.  Topliff,  145 
U.  S.  156,  12  S.  Ct.  825,  36  L.  ed.  658;  Kiss- 
inger-Ison  Co.  v.  Bradford  Belting  Co.,  123 
Fed.  91,  59  C.  C.  A.  221.  An  appeal  on 
interlocutory  decree  raises  no  question  as  to 
damages  recoverable.  Metallic  Extraction 
Co.  v.  Brown,  104  Fed.  345,  43  C.  C.  A.  568. 
The  court  will  not  consider  patents  on  which 
injunction  was  refused.  Diamond  State  Iron 
Co.  v.  Goldie,  84  Fed.  972,  28  C.  C.  A. 
589. 

Scope  of  review  and  disposition  of  appeal. — 
While  the  court  may  review  the  merits  of 
the  entire  case  upon  the  record  before  it 
and  in  a  clear  case  may  order  the  dismissal 
of  the  bill  (Co-operating  Merchants'  Co.  v. 
Hallock,  128  Fed.  596,  64  C.  C.  A.  104; 
Marden  v.  Campbell  Printing-Press,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  67  Fed.  809,  15  C.  C.  A.  26;  Gamewell 
Fire-Alarm  Tel.  Co.  v.  Municipal  Signal  Co., 
61  Fed.  208,  9  C.  C.  A.  450;  Curtis  v.  Over- 
man Wheel  Co.,  58  Fed.  784,  7  C.  C.  A. 
493;  Consolidated  Piedmont  Cable  Co.  v. 
Pacific  Cable  R.  Co.,  58  Fed.  226,  7  C.  C.  A. 
195 ;  American  Paper  Pail,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Na- 
tional Folding  Box,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  229, 
2  C.  C.  A.  165;  Dudley  E.  Jones  Co.  v.  Mun- 
ger Improved  Cotton  Mach.  Mfg.  Co.,  50  Fed. 
785,  1  C.  C.  A.  668),  on  appeal  from  an  order 
granting  a  preliminary  injunction  the  court 
of  appeals  will  not  review  the  merits  of  the 
entire  case,  but  only  whether  the  injunction 
was  improvidently  granted  (Adam  v.  Fol- 
ger,  120  Fed.  260,  56  C.  C.  A.  540;  Kilmer 
Mfg.  Co.  v.  Griswold,  67  Fed.  1017,  15 
C.  C.  A.  161 ;  Jensen  v.  Norton,  64  Fed.  662, 
12  C.  C.  A.  608;  Hart  V.  Buckner,  54  Fed. 
925,  5  C..  C.  A.  1 ;  Blount  v.  Societe  Anonyme, 
etc.,  53  Fed.  98,  3  C.  C.  A.  455;  Columbus 
Watch  Co.  v.  Robbins,  52  Fed.  337,  3  C.  C.  A. 
103).  An  interlocutory  order  granting  a 
preliminary  injunction  will  not  be  reversed 
except  where  there  was  an  abuse  of  dis- 
cretion. F.  C.  Austin  Mfg.  Co.  v.  American 
Wellworks,  121  Fed.  76,  57  C.  C.  A.  330; 
American  Fur  Refining  Co.  v.  Cimiotti  Un- 
hairing Co.,  118  Fed.  838,  55  C.  C.  A.  513; 
Loew  Filter  Co.  v.  German-American  Filter 
Co.,  107  Fod.  949,  47  C.  C.  A.  94;  Pacific 
Steam  Whaling  Co.  v.  Alaska  Packers'  Assoc., 
100  Fed.  462,  40  C.  C.  A.  494;  SocietS 


PATENTS 


[30  Cye.]     1053 


given  precedence  in  the  appellate  court.88     Supersedeas  on  appeal  will  be  granted 
only  under  special  circumstances.89 

2 1 .  REHEARING.  The  ordinary  rules  against  rehearings  except  under  exceptional 
circumstances  are  strictly  applied  in  suits  for  infringement,90  and  the  granting 
thereof  rests  in  the  discretion  of  the  court.91  Whether  a  rehearing  will  be  granted 
depends  on  the  facts  of  each  case  and  the  effect  which  the  granting  or  refusal  of 
the  application  will  have  on  the  rights  of  the  parties  respectively.92  While  under 
certain  circumstances  a  rehearing  may  be  granted  upon  discovery  of  new  evi- 
dence,93 it  will  not  be  granted  upon  discovery  of  new  evidence  which  as  far  as 
appears  was  accessible  and  should  have  been  produced  originally,94  nor  where  the 
new  evidence  is  not  clear  and  satisfactory  and  such  as  would  have  changed  the 
decision.95  As  a  condition  .of  granting  a  rehearing  the  court  may  require  the 


Anoriyme,  etc.  v.  Allen,  90  Fed.  815,  33 
C.  C.  A.  282.  Where  the  patent  has  expired, 
an  appeal  on  an  interlocutory  decree  granting 
an  injunction  will  be  dismissed.  National 
Folding-Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Robertson,  104  Fed. 
552,  44  C.  C.  A.  29;  Lockwood  v.  Wickes,  75 
Fed.  118,  21  C.  C.  A.  257;  Gamewell  Fire- 
Alarm  Tel.  Co.  v.  Municipal  Signal  Co.,  61 
Fed.  208,  9  C.  C.  A.  450.  Questions  con- 
sidered from  the  standpoint  of  the  lower 
court  and  adjudications  in  other  circuits  sus- 
taining the  patent  have  the  same  weight  upon 
appeal  as  below.  Consolidated  Fastener  Co. 
v.  Hays,  100  Fed.  984;  Consolidated  Fast- 
ener Co.  u.  Littauer,  84  Fed.  164,  28  C.  C.  A. 
133;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Ohio 
Brass  Co.,  80  Fed.  712,  26  C.  C.  A.  107; 
Bresnahan  v.  Tripp  Grant  Leveller  Co.,  72 
Fed.  920,  19  C.  C.  A.  237;  Duplex  Printing- 
Press  Co.  v.  Campbell  Printing-Press,  etc., 
Mfg.  Co.,  69  Fed.  250,  16  C.  C.  A.  220 ;  Ameri- 
can Paper  Pail,  etc.,  Co.  v.  National  Folding 
Box,  etc.,  Co.,  51  Fed.  229,  2  C.  C.  A.  165. 
The  court  of  appeals  is  not  bound  by  ad- 
judications in  other  circuits  relied  on  by 
court  below.  Stover  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Mast,  89 
Fed.  333,  32  C.  C.  A.  231;  Thomson-Houston 
Electric  Co.  v.  Hoosick  R.  Co.,  82  Fed.  461, 
27  C.  C.  A.  419.  A  finding  as  to  the  fact  of 
infringement  will  not  be  disturbed  where 
there  is  evidence  in  the  record  tending  to 
show  infringement.  Dobson  v.  Dornan,  118 
U.  S.  10,  6  S.  Ct.  946,  30  L.  ed.  63. 

88.  Act  March  3,   1891,  §   7,  26  U.  S.  St. 
at  L.  828   [U.  S.  Comp.  St.    (1901)   p.  550]; 
Raymond    v.    Royal    Baking-Powder    Co.,    76 
Fed.  465,  22  C.  C.  A.  276. 

89.  Timolat  v.  Philadelphia  Pneumatic  Tool 
Co.,  130  Fed.  903;  Edison  v.  American  Muto- 
scope   Co.,    110   Fed.   664    [reversed  on  other 
grounds  in   114  Fed.  926,  52  C.  C.  A.  546]; 
Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co.  v.  Ohio  Brass 
Co.,  78  Fed.  142 ;  National  Heeling-Mach.  Co. 
v.    Abbott,    77    Fed.    462.     And    see   Penn   v. 
Bibby,  L.  R.  3  Eq.  308,  36  L.  J.  Ch.  277,  15 
Wkly.   Rep.    192;    Lister   v.   Leather,    3   Jur. 
N.    S.    433,    5    Wkly.    Rep.    550;    Flower    v. 
Lloyd,  36  L.  T.  Rep.*N.  S.  444. 

Operation  of  supersedeas. —  An  appeal  with 
supersedeas  does  not  operate  as  a  license  to 
continue  infringement.  Bissell  Carpet- 
Sweeper  Co.  v.  Goshen  Sweeper  Co.,  72  Fed. 
545,  19  C.  C.  A.  25. 

90.  In  re  Gamewell  Fire-Alarm  Tel.  Co.,  73 


Fed.  908,  20  C.  C.  A.  Ill;  Searls  v.  Worden, 
11  Fed.  501. 

For  cases  in  which  rehearing  granted  see 
Campbell  Printing-Press,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Marden, 
70  Fed.  339 ;  Campbell  v.  New  York,  36  Fed. 
260;  American  Diamond  Rock-Boring  Co.  v. 
Sheldons,  24  Fed.  374,  23  Blatchf.  286; 
Schneider  v.  Thill,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,4706, 
5  Ban.  &  A.  595. 

91.  American  Diamond  Rock-Boring  Co.  v. 
Sheldon,  1  Fed.  870,  18  Blatchf.  50. 

After  appeal,  rehearing  cannot  be  granted 
except  by  permission  of  the  appellate  court. 
In  re  Potts,  166  U.  S.  263,  17  S.  Ct.  520, 
41  L.  ed.  994 ;  American  Soda  Fountain  Co. 
V.  Sample,  136  Fed.  857,  70  C.  C.  A.  415 
[reversing  134  Fed.  402]  ;  Nutter  v.  Moss- 
berg,  118  Fed.  168. 

92.  Pittsburgh    Reduction    Co.    v.    Cowles 
Electric  Smelting,  etc.,  Co.,  121  Fed.  556. 

93.  Diamond  Drill,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Kelley,  138 
Fed.  833    (evidence  not  accessible  by  the  use 
of  diligence)  ;  Thomson-Houston  Electric  Co. 
v.  Nassau  Electric  R.  Co.,  110  Fed.  646  (evi- 
dence not  accessible  by  the  use  of  diligence)  ; 
Webster  Loom  Co.  v.  Higgins,  43   Fed.   673; 
Johnson  v.  Beard,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,371,  2 
Ban.  &  A.  50,  8  Off.  Gaz.  435 ;  Holste  v.  Rob- 
ertson, 4  Ch.  D.  9,  46  L.  J.  Ch.  1,  35  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.   S.   457,   25  Wkly.   Rep.  35;   Wilson 
v.  Gann,  23  Wkly.  Rep.  546. 

94.  Panzl  v.  Battle  Island  Paper  Co.,  132 
Fed.  607   [reversed  on  other  grounds  in  138 
Fed.   48,   70  C.   C.  A.   474]  ;    Brill  v.   North 
Jersey  St.  R.  Co.,  125  Fed.  526;  Bliss  v.  Reed, 
113    Fed.   946;    Municipal  Signal   Co.  v.   Na- 
tional Electrical  Mfg.  Co.,  97  Fed.  810;  New 
York  Filter   Co.  v.  O.  H.  Jewell  Filter  Co., 
62   Fed.   582;    Electrical   Accumulator   Co.  v. 
Julien  Electric  Co.,  39  Fed.  490;   New  York 
Grape   Sugar   Co.  v.   American   Grape   Sugar 
Co.,  35  Fed.  212;  Burdsall  v.  Curran,  31  Fed. 
918;   Albany  Steam   Trap  Co.  v.  Felthousen, 
26   Fed.  318;   Peterson  v.  Simpkins,  25  Fed. 
486;    Andrews  v.   Denslow,    1    Fed.   Cas.   No. 
372,  2  Ban.   &  A.  587,   14  Blatchf.    182;   De 
Florez  v.   Raynolds,    7    Fed.   Cas.   No.    3,743, 
4  Ban.  &  A.  331,  16  Blatchf.  397;  Nutter  v. 
Rodgers,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,3°3. 

Laches  bars  the  right  to  a  rehearing.  Nor- 
ton v.  Walsh,  49  Fed.  769. 

95.  Sacks  f.  Brooks,  85  Fed.  970 ;  Stuart  v. 
St.  Paul,  63  Fed.  644;  Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
American  Zylonite  Co.,  27  Fed.  750;   Ameri- 

[XIII,  C,  21] 


1054     [30  Cye.] 


PATENTS 


moving  party  to  pay  his  opponent's  counsel  fee  for  the  previous  argument,96  or 
give  an  undertaking  to  pay  the  expense  of  additional  testimony.97 

D.  Threats  of  Suit.     Suit  may  be  maintained  by  a  manufacturer  to  enjoin  a 
patentee    from    making   baseless  threats  of  suit   for   infringement   against   his 
customers,98  but  an  injunction  will  not  be  granted  where  there  is  a  reasonable 
doubt  as  to  the  propriety  of  defendant's  actions.99 

E.  Operation  and  Effect  of  Decision1 —  1.  IN  GENERAL.    The  decision  by  a 


can  Bell  Tel.  Co.  v.  People's  Tel.  Co.,  25  Fed. 
725  [affirmed  in  126  U.  S.  1,  8  S.  Ct.  778, 
31  L.  ed.  863] ;  Hayes  v.  Dayton,  20  Fed. 
690;  Robinson  v.  Sutter,  11  Fed.  798;  Collins 
Co.  v.  Coes,  8  Fed.  517;  Adair  v.  Thayer,  7 
Fed.  920;  Blandy  v.  Griffith,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
1,530,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  434;  Hitchcock  v. 
Tremaine,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,540,  9  Blatchf. 
550,  5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  537,  1  Off.  Gaz.  633; 
Kerosene  Lamp  Co.  v.  Littell,  14  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  7,723. 

96.  Hake  v.  Brown,  44  Fed.  283. 

97.  Underwood   v.  Gerber,  37   Fed.   796,  2 
L.  R.  A.  357. 

98.  Columbia   Nat.    Sand  Dredging   Co.   V. 
Miller,  20  App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    245;   Murjahn 
v.  Hall,   119   Fed.   186;   Farquhar  Co.  v.  Na- 
tional  Co.,    102   Fed.    714,   42   C.   C.  A.   600, 
49    L.    R.    A.    755;    Computing   Scale   Co.   v. 
National  Computing  Scale  Co.,  79  Fed.  962; 
Emack  v.  Kane,  34  Fed.  46.    The  action  of  a 
patentee  in  harassing  purchasers  with  threats 
of   litigation   does  not   commend   itself   to    a 
court  of  equity.    American  Fibre-Chamois  Co. 
v.   Port   Huron   Fibre-Garment  Mfg.   Co.,   72 
Fed.  516,  18  C.  C.  A.  670. 

English  practice. —  Douglass  v.  Pintsch's 
Patent  Lighting  Co.,  [1897]  1  Ch.  176,  65 
L.  J.  Ch.  919,  75  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  332,  45 
Wkly.  Rep.  108;  Fenner  v.  Wilson,  [1893] 
2  Ch.  656,  62  L.  T.  Ch.  984,  3  Reports  629, 
68  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  748,  42  Wkly.  Rep.  57; 
Johnson  v.  Edge,  [1892]  2  Ch.  1,  61  L.  J. 
Ch.  262,  66  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  44,  40  Wkly. 
Rep.  437 ;  Axmann  v.  Lund,  L.  R.  18  Eq.  330, 
43  L.  J.  Ch.  655,  31  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  119,  22 
Wkly.  Rep.  789;  Ellam  v.  Martyn,  68  L.  J. 
Ch.  123,  79  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  510,  47  Wkly. 
Rep.  212;  Kurtz  v.  Spence,  57  L.  J.  Ch.  238, 
58  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  438;  Fusee  Vesta  Co.  v. 
Bryant,  56  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  136.  Threats 
must  be  followed  with  due  diligence  by  suit  or 
injunction  granted.  Colley  v.  Hart,  44  Ch.  D. 
179,  59  L.  J.  Ch.  308,  62  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  424, 
38  Wkly.  Rep.  501 ;  Challender  v.  Royle,  36  Ch. 
D.  425,  56  L.  J.  Ch.  995,  57  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
734,  36  Wkly.  Rep.  357;  Rollins  v.  Hinks, 
L.  R.  13  Eq.  355,  41  L.  J.  Ch.  358,  26  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  56,  20  Wkly.  Rep.  287 ;  Household 
v.  Fairburn,  51  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  498.  Filing 
suit  promptly  is  a  complete  defense.  Barrett 
v.  Day,  43  Ch.  D.  435,  59  L.  J.  Ch.  464,  62 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  597,  38  Wkly.  Rep.  362; 
Dunlop  Pneumatic  Tyre  Co.  u/New  Seddon 
Pneumatic  Tyre,  etc.,  Co.,  76  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
405 ;  Haskelf  Golf  Ball  Co.  v.  Hutchinson,  20 
T.  L.  R.  606.  Suit  against  third  party  is  no 
defense.  Combined  Weighing  Co.  v.  Auto- 
matic Weighing  Mach.  Co.,  42  Ch.  D.  665, 
58  L.  J.  Ch.  709,  61  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  474; 
Goulard  v.  Lindsay,  56  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  506. 

[XIII,  C,  21] 


Suit  must  be  against  party  threatened. 
Kensington,  etc.,  Electric  Lighting  Co.  v. 
Lane  Fox  Electrical  Co.,  [1891]  2  Ch.  573, 
64  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  770,  39  Wkly.  Rep.  650. 
Injunction  wijl  be  refused  where  there  is 
actual  infringement.  Barney  v.  United  Tel. 
Co.,  28  Ch.  D.  394,  52  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  573, 
33  Wkly.  Rep.  576;  Incandescent  Gas  Light 
Co.  v.  New  Incandescent  Gas  Light  Co.,  76 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  47 ;  Burnett  v.  Tak,  45  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  743.  Contra,  Walker  v.  Clarke,  56 
L.  J.  Ch.  239,  56  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  Ill,  35 
Wkly.  Rep.  245.  The  validity  of  the  patent 
is  not  in  issue  but  only  infringement.  Kurtz 
v.  Spence,  33  Ch.  D.  579,  55  L.  J.  Ch.  919, 
55  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  317,  35  Wkly.  Rep.  26 
[affirmed  in  36  Ch.  D.  770,  58  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  320,  36  Wkly.  Rep.  438].  Threats  in 
letters  enjoined  see  Skinner  v.  Shew,  [1893] 
1  Ch.  413,  62  L.  J.  Ch.  196,  67  L.  T.  Rep. 
N.  S.  696,  2  Reports  179,  41  Wkly.  Rep.  217; 
Driffield,  etc.,  Pure  Linseed  Cake  Co.  v. 
Waterloo  Mills  Cake,  etc.,  Co.,  31  Ch.  D. 
638,  55  L.  J.  Ch.  391,  54  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S. 
210,  34  Wkly.  Rep.  360.  Injunction  refused 
where  mere  trade  circular  in  good  faith.  So- 
ciete"  Anonyme  v.  Tilghman's  Patent  Sand 
Blast  Co.,  25  Ch.  D.  1,  53  L.  J.  Ch.  1,  49 
L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  451,  32  Wkly.  Rep.  71;  Hal- 
sey  v.  Brotherhood,  15  Ch.  D.  514,  49  L.  J. 
Ch.  786,  43  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  366,  29  Wkly. 
Rep.  9  [affirmed  in  19  Ch.  D.  386,  51  L.  J.  Ch. 
233,  45  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  640,  30  Wkly.  Rep. 
279].  Defendant  must  give  particulars  in 
support  of  threats.  Union  Electrical  Power, 
etc.,  Co.  v.  Electrical  Storage  Co.,  38  Ch.  D. 
325,  59  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  427,  36  Wkly.  Rep. 
913;  Wren  v.  Weild,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  213,  38 
L.  J.  Q.  B.  88,  20  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  277.  May 
recover  damages  for  threats  where  actual  loss 
shown.  Skinner  v.  Shew,  [1894]  2  Ch.  581,  63 
L.  J.  Ch.  826,  71  L.  T.  Rep.  N.  S.  110,  8  Re- 
ports 455. 

99.  Boston  Diatiti  Co.  v.  Florence  Mfg.  Co., 
114  Mass.  69,  19  Am.  Rep.  310;  Hovey  v. 
Rubber  Tip  Pencil  Co.,  33  N.  Y.  Super.  Ct. 
522  [affirmed  in  57  N.  Y.  119,  15  Am.  Rep. 
470] ;  Adriance  v.  National  Harrow  Co.,  121 
Fed.  827,  58  C.  C.  A.  163;  Davison  v.  Na- 
tional Harrow  Co.,  103  Fed.  360;  Computing 
Scale  Co.  v.  National  Computing  Scale  Co., 
79  Fed.  962 ;  New  York  Filter  Co.  v.  Schwarz- 
walder,  58  Fed.  577;  Kelley  v.  Ypsilanti 
Dress-Stay  Mfg.  Co.,  44  Fed.  19,  10  L.  R.  A. 
686;  Westinghouse  Air-Brake  Co.  v.  Car- 
penter, 32  Fed.  545;  Baltimore  Car  Wheel 
Co.  v.  Bemis,  29  Fed.  95;  Chase  v.  Tuttle, 
27  Fed.  110;  Pentlarge  v.  Pentlarge,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10.965a,  14  Reporter  579. 

1.  See,  generally,  JUDGMENTS,  23  Cyc. 
1106  et  seq. 


PATENTS  [30  Cye.]     1055 

court  of  competent  jurisdiction  in  a  suit  on  letters  patent  is  conclusive  upon  the 
parties  to  such  suit  and  their  privies.2  The  character  of  conclusiveness  attaches 
only  to  linal  judgments  or  decrees,3  and  to  those  in  which  the  validity  of  the  patent 
was  decided,4  and  it  must  appear  that  the  judgment  or  decree  was  rendered  after 
full  consideration  of  the  merits  of  the  case.5  While  a  judgment  sustaining  the 
validity  of  a  patent  does  not  operate  as  res  adjudicata  in  a  suit  on  the  same 
patent  against  a  different  defendant,6  respect  for  the  stability  of  a  judicial  deci- 


Effect  of  previous  adjudications  upon  grant- 
ing of  preliminary  injunctions  see  supra,  XII, 
E,  4,  b,  (iv). 

2.  Westinghouse  Electric,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Stan- 
ley Electric  Mfg.  Co.,  117  Fed.  309;  Simonds 
Counter  Mach.  Co.  v.  Knox,  39  Fed.  702; 
McCloskey  v.  Haraill,  15  Fed.  750;  Crandall 
v.  Dare,  *  1 1  Fed.  902 ;  Meyer  v.  Goodyear 
India-Rubber  Glove  Mfg.  Co.,  11  Fed.  891, 
20  Blatchf.  91;  Shoe  Mach.  Co.  v.  Cultan, 
[1896]  1  Ch.  667,  65  L.  J.  Ch.  314,  74  L.  T. 
Rep.  N.  S.  166.  Compare  New  Departure 
Bell  Co.  17.  Hardware  Specialty  Co.,  69  Fed. 
152;  Simonds  Counter  Mach.  Co.  v.  Knox, 
39  Fed.  702. 

Effect  of  sale  of  interest  pending  suit. — 
The  finding  of  the  decree  is  binding  upon  the 
respondent  in  an  infringement  suit  where  he 
sold  out  his  interest  in  the  infringing  busi- 
ness pending  the  hearing  and  gave  up  to 
his  vendee  the  control  and  management  of 
the  suit.  Gloucester  Isinglass,  etc.,  Co.  V. 
Le  Page,  30  Fed.  370. 

Where  a  suit  for  infringement  against  a 
dealer  is  defended  by  the  manufacturer  at  his 
own  cost,  the  latter  is  bound  by  the  decision 
in  the  case  (Sacks  v.  Kupferle,  127  Fed. 
569;  National  Folding- Box,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Day- 
ton Paper-Novelty  Co.,  95  Fed.  991),  not 
only  upon  all  the  questions  that  were  raised 
and  determined  in  the  suit,  but  also  upon 
all  that  might  have  been  raised  and  deter- 
mined therein  (Eagle  Mfg.  Co.  v.  David 
Bradley  Mfg.  Co.,  50  Fed.  193).  But 
it  has  been  held  that  the  defense  of 
prior  adjudication  is  not  available  to  a 
defendant,  dismissed  from  a  suit  for  in- 
fringement on  its  own  application,  on  the 
ground  that  it  employed  counsel  and  defrayed 
the  costs  of  the  defense  made  by  its  co-de- 
fendant, unless  it  appears  by  clear  and 
definite  evidence  that  such  fact- was  known  to 
plaintiff.  Singer  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Cramer,  109 
Fed.  652,  48  C.  C.  A.  588. 

If  a  reissued  patent  is  for  the  same  inven- 
tion as  that  described  in  the  original  patent, 
a  former  decision  is  conclusive  on  the  ques- 
tion of  infringement.  Cammeyer  v.  Newton, 
4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,344,  4  Ban.  &  A.  159,  16 
Off.  Gaz.  720.  Contra,  Wells  v.  Jacques,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,398,  1  Ban.  &  A.  60,  5  Off. 
Gaz.  364. 

The  authority  of  a  prior  decision  by  an  ap- 
pellate court  is  not  limited  to  the  facts  and 
defenses  discussed  in  its  opinion,  but  ex- 
tends to  all  that  were  before  it  in  the  record. 
Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  v.  Klipstein, 
etc.,  Co.,  125  Fed.  543. 

A  decree  as  to  what  is  an  infringement  is 
conclusive  upon  the  parties  and  upon  the 
master,  and  extends  to  everything  sub- 


stantially like  the  infringement  decreed 
against.  Wooster  v.  Thornton,  26  Fed. 
274. 

3.  An  interlocutory  decree  in  an  infringe- 
ment  suit   does   not    render   the   validity   of 
the  patent  res  adjudicata.     Rumford  Chemi- 
cal Works  v.  Hecker,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,133, 
2  Ban.  &  A.  351,  10  Off.  Gaz.  289,  holding, 
however,    that   it    does   not    follow   that   the 
controversy    between    the    litigants    remains 
open  as  it  would  have  remained  if  there  had 
been  no  previous  adjudication.     A  decree  in 
a  prior  suit  for  the  infringement  of  a  pat- 
ent is  none  the  less  conclusive  between  the 
parties  on  the  issues  of  validity  and  infringe- 
ment   because    it    was    merely    interlocutory, 
when  the  second  suit  was-  commenced,  where 
it  is  set  up  therein  as  an  adjudication  by  a 
supplemental  bill,  after  having  ripened  into 
a    final   decree.      Bredin   v.    National   Metal 
Weatherstrip  Co.,   147  Fed.  741    [a/firmed  in 
157  Fed.  1003]. 

4.  Leonard    v.    Simplex    Electric    Heating 
Co.,  145  Fed.  946. 

5.  Steam-Gauge,    etc.,    Co.   v.   Meyrose,    27 
Fed.    213;    Celluloid  Mfg.    Co.   v.  Tower,   26 
Fed.  451. 

Where,  in  a  suit  for  infringement,  the  bill 
is  dismissed  because  of  failure  to  show  any 
infringement,  the  decree  dismissing  the  bill 
will  not  estop  plaintiff  or  his  assigns  from 
again  suing  the  same  defendant  for  infring- 
ing the  same  patent.  Steam-Gauge,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Meyrose,  27  Fed.  213. 

A  suit  dismissed  without  prejudice  is  not 
a  bar  to  a  second  suit,  noCfcconclusive  of  any 
issue  joined  in  favor  of  the  complainant. 
Robinson  v.  American  Car,  etc.,  Co.,  135  Fed. 
693,  68  C.  C.  A.  331. 

The  overruling  of  a  demurrer  which  defend- 
ant refused  to  argue  is  not  an  adjudication 
in  favor  of  patentability.  Wollensak  v.  Sar- 
gent, 33  Fed.  840. 

A  decree  pro  confesso  on  a  bill  for  in- 
fringement is  conclusive  so  far  at  least  as 
it  is  supported  by  the  allegations  of  the  bill. 
Thomson  v.  Wooster,  114  U.  S.  104,  5  S.  Ct. 
788,  29  L.  ed.  105.  Compare  Everett  v. 
Thatcher,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,578,  3  Ban.  &  A. 
435,  2  Flipp.  234,  16  Off.  Gaz.  1046. 

6.  Truman  v.  Carvill  Mfg.  Co.,  87  Fed.  470 ; 
Boyden    Power-Brake    Co.    v.    Westinghouse 
Air-Brake  Co.,  70  Fed.  816,  17  C.  C.  A.  430; 
McMillan  v.  Conrad,  16  Fed.  128,  5  McCrary 
140. 

A  judgment  for  infringement  against  a 
manufacturer  is  not  conclusive  upon  a  sub- 
sequent purchaser  and  user  of  the  manu- 
factured articles  either  as  to  the  validity 
of  the  patent  or  infringement.  Van  Epps  V. 
International  Paper  Co.,  124  Fed.  542. 

[XIII,  E,  1] 


1056     [30Cye.]     PATENTS— PATHOLOGICAL  CONDITION 


sion  and  a  proper  regard  for  the  security  of  property  in  the  same  patent  require 
that  it  shall  not  be  disturbed,  unless  there  was  very  palpable  error.7 

2.  RECOVERY  BY  PATENTEE  AS  VESTING  TITLE  IN  INFRINGER.  A  recovery  of  the 
profits  for  the  use  of  a  patented  article  does  not  vest  the  title  in  defendant ; 8  but  the 
recovery  of  profits  and  damages  from  the  manufacturers  of  an  infringing  machine 
vests  the  title  to  the  use  in  the  purchaser  of  the  article  and  debars  the  patentee 
from  recovering  from  a  user  for  the  use  thereof.9  But  this  can  only  be  held  on 
a  clear  showing  that  the  purchaser  was  using  the  same  patented  article  as  that 
involved  in  the  suit  between  the  patentee  and  the  infringing  manufacturer,  and 
that  the  user  was  a  vendee  of  such  manufacturer ; 10  and  it  would  seem  that  to 
effect  such  a  result  it  must  further  appear  that  the  patentee's  claim  to  profits  and 
damages  against  the  manufacturer  has  been  actually  paid  and  satisfied.11 

PATENT  TO  LAND.     See  MINES  AND  MINERALS  ;  PUBLIC  LANDS. 

PATER  EST  QUEM  NUPTI^  DEMONSTRANT.  A  maxim  meaning  "  The  nup- 
tials show  who  is  the  father."  1 

PATER,  ET  MATER,  ET  PUER  SUNT  UNA  CARD.  A  maxim  meaning  "  The 
father,  mother,  and  son  are  of  one  flesh."  2 

PATERFAMILIAS  OB  ALTERIUS  CULPAM  TENETUR  SIVE  SERVI  SIVE  LIBERI. 
A  maxim  meaning  "  The  father  is  responsible  for  the  misconduct  of  his  child  or 
his  slave." 8 

PATERNITY.     See  BASTARDS  ;  PARENT  AND  CHILD. 

PATH.  A  term  constantly  used  in  our  old  acts  as  synonymous  with  "  road."  4 
(See,  generally,  PRIVATE  HOADS  ;  STREETS  AND  HIGHWAYS.) 

PATHOLOGICAL  CONDITION.  A  diseased  condition  of  the  body.5  (See 
PATHOLOGY.) 


A  servant  or  agent  sued  separately  for  in- 
fringing a  patent  is  not  bound  by  a  former 
decision  against  his  principal  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  the  validity  of  the  patent.  Hayes  v. 
Bickelhoupt,  24  Fed.  806. 

A  decree  declaring  the  invalidity  of  a  pat- 
ent is  not  a  proceeding  in  rem,  and  does  not 
prevent  the  same  or  another  plaintiff  from 
prosecuting  a  suit  against  another  defendant, 
and  establishing  its  validity  upon  the  same 
or  different  evidence.  Consolidated  Roller- 
Mill  Co.  v.  George  <c.  Smith  Middlings  Puri- 
fier Co.,  40  Fed.  305. 

7.  Brill  v.  Washington  R.,  etc.,  Co.,  30  App. 
Cas.    (D.  C.)   255;  Voightmann  v.  Weis,  etc., 
Cornice  Co.,    133   Fed.   298    [affirmed  in   148 
Fed.  848]  ;  Walker  Patent  Pivoted  Bin  Co.  v. 
Miller,    132    Fed.   823    [affirmed  in    139   Fed. 
134,  71  C.  C.  A.  398] ;  Cutler-Hammer  Mfg. 
Co.  f.  Hammer,  124  Fed.  222  [affirmed  in  128 
Fed.  730,  63  C.  C.  A.  328]  ;  Rose  v.  Fretz,  98 
Fed.   112;  Norton  V.  San  Jose  Fruit-Packing 
Co.,  83  Fed.  512,  27  C.  C.  A.  576;  Acme  Har- 
vester Co.  v.  Forbes,  69   Fed.   149;   Simonds 
Counter   Mach.    Co.   v.    Knox,    39   Fed.    702; 
Hussey  v.  Whitely,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,950,  1 
Bond  407,  2  Fish.'  Pat.  Cas.  120. 

8.  Spaulding   v.    Page,    22    Fed.    Cas.    No. 
13,219,  4   Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  641,   1    Sawy.   702, 
holding  that  a  recovery  based  upon  this  rule 
of  damages  can  only  be  for  the  use  of  the 
machine    prior    to    the    recovery,    and    ordi- 
narily does  not  cover  the  value  of  the  use 
for  the  entire  period  over  which  the  patent 
right   extends,    or    the    period    during   which 
the   particular   machine   is   capable   of  being 
used.     See  also  Suffolk  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hayden, 

[XIII,  E,  1] 


3  Wall.   (U.  S.)   315,  18  L.  ed.  76;  Tuttle  v. 
Matthews,  28  Fed.  98. 

9.  Steam  Stone-Cutter  Co.  v.  Sheldons,  21 
Fed.    875;    Allis    v.    Stowell,    16    Fed.    783; 
Booth  v.  Seevers,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  l,648a,  19 
Off.  Gaz.  1140;  Perrigo  v.  Spaulding,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  10,994,  2  Ban.  &  A.  348,  13  Blatchf. 
389,    12   Off.    Gaz.    352;    Spaulding   v.   Page, 
22   Fed.   Cas.   No.    13,219,   4   Fish.   Pat.   Cas. 
641,  1  Sawy.  702;   Steam  Stonecutter  Co.  v. 
Windsor  Mfg.  Co.,  22  Fed.   Cas.  No.   13,335, 

4  Ban.  &  A.  445,  17  Blatchf.  24. 

The  adoption  of  the  patent  fee  as  the  meas- 
ure of  damages  for  infringement  by  the  use 
of  a  machine  operates  to  vest  in  defendant 
the  right  to  use  the  machine  during  the  term 
of  the  patent.  Emerson  v.  Simm,  8  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  4,443,  6  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  281,  3  Off. 
Gaz.  293;  Sickels  v.  Borden,  22  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  12,832,  3  Blatchf.  535. 

10.  Allis  v.  Stowell,  16  Fed.  783. 

11.  Allis  i\  Stowell,  16  Fed.  783. 

1.  Anderson  L.  Diet. 

Applied  in  Van  Aernam  v.  Van  Aernam,  1 
Barb.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  375,  377;  Woodward  r. 
Blue,  107  N.  C.  407,  408,  12  S.  E.  453,  22 
Am.  St.  Rep.  897,  10  L.  R.  A.  662;  Padel- 
ford's  Estate,  7  Pa.  Dist.  331,  332. 

2.  Morgan  Leg.  Max.  [citing  Branch  Max.] . 

3.  Morgan  Leg.  Max.   [citing  Tayler  314]. 

4.  Singleton  v.  Road  Com'rs,  2  Nott  &  M. 
(S.  C.)   526,  527. 

5.  Bacon  v.  U.  S.  Mutual  Ace.  Assoc.,  123 
N.  Y.  304,  311,   25   N.   E.   399,   20  Am.   St. 
Rep.   748,   9   L.   R.   A.    617;    Dozier  7;.   New 
York  Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Fed.  446,  449,  13 
L.  R.  A.  114. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


APR   23  1945 

SENf  ONitL 

AUfi  09  2000 

U.  &  BERKELEY 

• 

LD  21-100m-12,'43  (8796s) 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


